CRM-M-24412-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.231-2 CRM-M-24412-2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 NARESH @ NESHI ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0270 dated 30.12.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2), 324(5), 331(6), 351(3), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 149, 147, 425, 458, 506 of IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Kuldeep, who alleged that on the intervening night of 29/30.12.2025 at about 1:30–2:00 A.M., several accused persons came to his house in vehicles, armed with sticks, iron rods and pipes. They allegedly damaged the gate, windows and vehicles parked outside the house and also fired gunshots with an intention to kill, though no one was hit. On hearing ANU 2026.05.06 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24412-2026 2 the noise, family members and neighbours gathered, upon which the accused fled away. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case, although the FIR has been registered under Section 307 IPC/Section 109(1) BNS, the injured has not received any gunshot injury and the only allegations are that co-accused Shamsher and Manjeet fired shots but did not hit anybody. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he was part of a criminal conspiracy in pursuance to which co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and some of the accused were armed with deadly weapons and allegedly attempted to cause death by firing gunshots in the air and by damaging the house. It is thus a case of no injury. It is further submitted that charges are yet to be framed, the petitioner is in custody for the last four months and conclusion of trial is likely to take time; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars and he deserve to be released on bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and has opposed the bail application. It is argued by learned State counsel that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He formed part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common criminal conspiracy in pursuance to which the co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and fired shots. It is submitted that the accused attempted to cause death by firing gunshots in the ANU 2026.05.06 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24412-2026 3 air and also caused damage to the house and property of the complainant. However, it is fairly conceded that the petitioner is in custody for the last four months and that charges are yet to be framed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited in nature. Even as per the prosecution case, though gunshots were allegedly fired, no person has suffered any gunshot injury, making it a case of no bodily injury. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was part of the alleged conspiracy and unlawful assembly, however, he is not stated to be the ones who fired the shots. The petitioner is in custody for the last four months, the investigation stands completed and the challan has been presented, but charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it a fit case for grant of regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 06.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANU 2026.05.06 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh