IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55570-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 06.11.2025 Pronounced on : 10.11.2025 Rinku ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Sakeel Ahmad, Advocate and Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, and Sections 115, 127(2), 133, 140(3), 3(5), 351(3), 61(2) and 111(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the FIR No.40 dated 22.02.2025 has been lodged in Sushant Lok, District Gurugram. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being on a complaint, submitted by Rahul S/o Sita Ram, GAURAV THAKUR hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that he was working as a Security Head (Bouncer) with Inderjit Yadav, and that for certain works, Inderjit Yadav used to take services of additional Bouncers, and for that purpose, he (complainant) used to charge Rs.2,000/- per bouncer from Inderjit Yadav. According to complainant, in the office of his employer Inderjit Yadav, Navneet @Chotte, Joginder @Kale, Vikas and Rinku were also working for taking care of financial activities of Inderjit Yadav. It was alleged by the complainant that when Navneet @Chhote and Joginder @Kale came to know about his commission, they informed Inderjit Yadav, and therefore, he got annoyed.

3. According to complainant, in view of abovementioned development, Inderjit Yadav called him to a spot near Taj Hotel, Sector-44, Gurugram, and when he reached there, on gun-point, Navneet @Chotte, Joginder @Kale, Vikas, Rinku and Pahari forced him to sit in the car, tied him with clothes and took to a room, where his clothes were removed and burn injuries were inflicted on his person with cigarette butts. It was stated by the complainant that in the abovementioned incident, video was also prepared by Joginder @Kale, and when he lost conscious, he was abandoned by the above-named assailants.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. During the course of investigation, the accused have been arrested.

5. Heard.

GAURAV THAKUR

6. The record has been perused carefully.

7. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for arriving at any decision with regard to present petition for bail: -

i) that all the offences for which the petitioner has been charged, except the offence under Section 111 of BNS are triable by the Court of Sessions.

ii) That although Section 111(2) of BNS has been invoked in this case, but the custody certificate, placed on record, shows that except for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the petitioner has not been booked for any other offence in the past;

iii) That the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 06 months and 05 days;

iv) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

8. With