SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-65900-2025 (O&M) -1-

208-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CRM-M-65900-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 05.02.2026

Arman ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Ms. Manita Dalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for 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

TRIPTI SAINI

2026.02.06 09:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-65900-2025 (O&M) -2-

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in

the original FIR. It is submitted that in the FIR, only two persons namely Ashish @

Kaku and Sumit @ Kala were specifically named and the allegation of firing a

gunshot is attributed solely to co-accused Sumit @ Kala. The complainant did not

sustain any injury and admittedly, it is a no-injury case.

4. It is further argued that the name of the petitioner surfaced for the first

time only in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on

12.09.2024, i.e. after more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR,

which clearly reflects an afterthought and an improved version of the prosecution

TRIPTI SAINI

2026.02.06 09:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-65900-2025 (O&M) -3-

case. Even in the said supplementary statement, no specific role or overt act has

been attributed to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the

only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen rid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top