CRM-M-48310-2026 -1- 239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48310-2026 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Shaawej Khan …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.92 dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 190, 191 (3), 109, 115 (2), 333, 351 (2), 61 (2) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 149, 148, 307, 323, 452, 506, 120 B of IPC) and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially not named in the FIR and has been implicated only on the basis of the statement made by Tushar @ Baman in police custody, wherein, he had alleged that the petitioner was accompanied him. He further referred to the order (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, to contend that Tushar @ Baman has already been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 30.07.2026. Learned counsel further submits that even the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 26.03.2026 and is in custody for the last 05 months. Now, after completion of the investigation, challan has been presented against the petitioner and even as per the case set up by the prosecution, he was simply present at the place of occurrence and no overt act has been attributed to him. HEMLATA 2026.09.02 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48310-2026 -2- He further submits that in the present case, Simrat Singh @ Roda, Harsh Saini, Harsh Punia, Veerbahadur @ Harsh Rajput and Nishant have already been granted the concession of bail by the Courts and the case of the petitioner is at par with them. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that only one person Sher Singh was injured in the present case and he had suffered only two simple injuries. Apart from that, even the offence under Section 109 of BNS has been added in the present case only on account of the fact that Lakshay @ Lavish, non-applicant had fired shots in the air. The petitioner was simply stated to be present at the place of alleged occurrence. Thus, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 02.09.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.09.02 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document