IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-66712-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 Shiv Kumar alias Shiva ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana.

None for the complainant.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0009 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Daiyar and presently residing at Kothi No. 292, HUDA Sector-3, Fatehabad. It was alleged that Ms. Malika, resident of village Daiyar, had been living with him in a live-in relationship for about the last six months. On 16.01.2025 at about 12:05 PM, when Ms. Malika was present at the aforesaid house, petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva along with one unknown person having muffled face came there and knocked at the door. As the door was not opened, the complainant dialed the emergency number ‘112’ and informed the police. On getting information, both the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, upon which the complainant along with Ms. Malika chased them. During the chase, the petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva allegedly took out a pistol and, while running towards the house, fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Ms. Malika, however the bullet passed by them and hit the door. It was further alleged that another unknown person accompanying the petitioner was also armed with a pistol. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and Ms. Malika, the assailants fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill them in future. It was further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to financial transactions with Randhir, father of the petitioner, and that earlier also a quarrel had taken place in the village between the parties. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence whatsoever. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant Krishan Kumar on account of a dispute relating to financial transactions with the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself was residing in a live-in relationship with Malika, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner, and due to the said dispute the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the allegations in the FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or to Malika and the alleged gunshot did not hit any person. Learned counsel further submits that in the subsequent supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, he himself clarified that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and that the allegation regarding firing by the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR in haste. It is also argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as the alleged weapon has already been recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2025 and has remained in custody for about one year, one month and eighteen days. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail.

4. On the other