205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 Chirag alias Nepali …Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Ms. Manpreet, Advocate for Mr. Siddarth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D.S.Maan, DAG, Haryana.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.864 dated 11.12.2023 registered under Sections 307, 411, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 29 of Arms Act, at Police Station Shahabad, Kurukshetra.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Narinder Singh and the same has been reproduced below:-

“The statement of Narinder Singh was recorded to the effect that on 11.12.2023, at around 10:30 am, he and his brother Jitender Singh came to Shahabad in car bearing registration No.HR-41-9000. Thereafter, his brother Jitender alongwith Aman on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-78C-6496 started going towards Shahabad Court and the complainant alongwith Monty also started their journey in their car. In the meanwhile, Sikander and Chirag were also found to be coming who crossed his car and started following his brother Jitender. Once, Jitender turned his motorcycle towards Devi Mandir, accused Sikander, who was having a country made pistol in his hand, fired three gun shots, out of which two gun shots hit his brother Jitender who fell down from his motorcycle. The accused who were having previous enmity with complainant while leaving spot declared that they have already killed Jitender and they further threatened the complainant with dire consequences. He prayed for taking legal action against accused persons. On these, the present F.I.R. was registered under sections 307, 411/34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged crime and has been falsely involved in the present case. As per the allegations levelled by the complainant, the petitioner was driving the motorcycle and the shots were fired by his co-accused, Sikandar. Even the petitioner was not carrying any fire arm. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 23.12.2023 and is in custody for the last more than one year and one month. Still further, Sandeep Singh @ Lotta @ Sandeep Kumar, co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. She further submits that the prosecution has been able to examine only four witnesses and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. She further contends that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and was never involved in any other criminal activity.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious crime and Sikander, co-accused had fired shots on the complainant in the present case and the complainant is yet to be examined.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 23.12.2023 and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented against him. Even the prosecution has been able to examine four witnesses, so far and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Moreover, co-accused, Sandeep Singh @ Lotta @ Sandeep Kumar has already been granted the concession of bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated

25.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned, subject to the following