Regular bail may be granted in a no-injury case where the accused had a limited facilitating role, was not named in the FIR, and is entitled to parity with co-accused, especially after prolonged custody and completion of investigation.

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2024, on the statement of complainant Umesh @ Pistol, FIR No. 251 was registered at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The complainant stated that in the evening, while he was present at his fields near the tea shop situated close to the CNG Petrol Pump on Dadri–Jhajjar Road along with his uncle Dalbir, Ashok and his brother Vinay were also present at the shop. At about 6:20 PM, three motorcycles arrived at the spot, two persons each were riding two motorcycles and three persons were riding the third motorcycle. Two persons got down from the motorcycles and started abusing the complainant and threatened him. The complainant identified them as Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu Nai. It is alleged that thereafter Sumit @ Kala fired at the complainant with a pistol with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant managed to escape the gunshot and ran towards the fields to save his life. All the accused chased the complainant with the intention to kill him, upon which the persons present at the shop raised an alarm. Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala are alleged to have fired at the complainant along with three to four other associates, though the gunshot did not hit the complainant. After some time, when the complainant returned to the spot, he found an empty cartridge lying there. The complainant further stated that Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala had a previous grudge against him. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, the present FIR was registered against Ashish @ Kaku, Sumit @ Kala and their associates for offences under Sections 109, 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, attributing the role of firing with a pistol to accused Sumit @ Kala, presence and participation in the occurrence to accused Ashish @ Kaku, and involvement of other unidentified associates in chasing and threatening the complainant with the intention to kill him.

3. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the only named accused therein are Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala. As per the prosecution version itself, only one gunshot was fired in the entire incident and the said gunshot has been specifically attributed to accused Sumit @ Kala, which did not hit the complainant. During investigation, Ashish @ Kaku was found innocent on the basis of CCTV footage and it also emerged that only two motorcycles were used in the occurrence. The petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than one month, which renders the allegation against the petitioner doubtful.

4. It is further contended that no recovery of any weapon has been effected from the petitioner and there is no material on record connecting him with the main accused or the alleged firing. The petitioner is stated to have a si