CRM-M-66927-2025 Date of decision : 07.03.2026 Sunil @ Yash .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has approached by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.152 dated 01.05.2024 under Sections 120-B, 201, 202, 302, 34, 387, 411 & 471 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant Rakesh Kumar. It was alleged that his son Sumit (deceased) was running an office in the name of Balaji International Courier at Mughal Canal, Karnal. His son told the complainant that he was threatened on phone by Daler Kotia gang to pay a ransom of Rs.1 crore. On 30.04.2024 at about 05:00 P.M., his son left for home after completing his work in the office. When his son reached in front of Rana Academy, Sector 14 on his motorcycle, two unknown boys riding on a motorcycle tried to kill him by firing bullets at him. One bullet hit on his right arm and two bullets on his stomach. His son was shifted to the statement. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. The injured Sumit succumbed to the injuries on 17.05.2024 and thus, the FIR which was initially registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC, was turned into Section 302 IPC. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Co-accused i.e. the shooters were found to be Gaurav Bainsla and Sumit @ Sunny and they were arrested. On their disclosure statements, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused and resultantly, he was arrested on 13.05.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, who had fired at the deceased. He has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had carried out the recce. He submits that similarly situated co-accused, Karamjeet @ Boby has already been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the

CRM-M-66927-2025 3

petitioner and submits that complicity of the petitioner has been duly proved during the investigation. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are regarding facilitating the co-accused in purchasing of the fire arms. However, he endorsed the fact that similarly situated co- accused, namely, Karamjeet @ Boby has already been granted bail by this Court. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 53 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses have been examined so far. He has placed on record custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that name of the petitioner surfaced in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that it was the petitioner who carried out the recce. The allegations regarding shootin