CRM-M-47302-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CRM-M-47302-2026 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Mohit Malik ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the second petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/439 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.54 dated 07.02.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115, 190 & 191(3) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 302, 307, 321, 149, 148 of IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act deleted (Section 27 Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonipat, Haryana. AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47302-2026 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor there was any averment in the FIR, which even remotely connects him with the commission of crime. In fact, the name of the petitioner surfaced only in the disclosure statement of Narender @ Nadru, the main accused/uncle of the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner had also reached the place of occurrence, however, he had left the spot prior to the firing incident. Learned counsel further submits that except the said role, no other overt act has been attributed to him. He further contends that even during the course of trial, Anuj, complainant/PW-3 and Ajeeb, injured/PW-7 have examined and from their testimonies, it is apparent that both the witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that since the material witnesses have already been examined, the petitioner may not be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 12.08.2025 and is in custody since then. He further submits that the similarly placed co-accused Sunny has already been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 05.08.2026 (Annexure P-4). He further referred to the orders dated 26.05.2025 and 30.05.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby, the concession of bail has been granted to Devender alias Patwari and Sunil alias Shikla and contend that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than them and he deserves to be enlarged on bail. AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47302-2026 -3- 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 as per the case set up by the prosecution, the petitioner had left the place of occurrence, immediately before the firing incident and the shots were fired by Narender @ Nadru only. Still further, during the course of trial, Anuj, complainant (PW-3) and Ajeeb, injured (PW-7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile by the trial Court. 6. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. 27.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document