THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25116 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Manoj ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Ajay Kripal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.114, dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Section 25(1)(B) & 25(8) of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar. Further prayer has been made for granting ad-interim bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that when the police party was on patrolling on 23.03.2025, they saw a young boy coming from Kalanaur side with a backpack on his back. He was apprehended by the SI on the basis of suspicion and on asking, he disclosed his name as Sachin Sharma @ Golu. When he was inquired about the bagpack, he told there was illegal weapon in the bag. In the meantime, 02 other young boys were seen coming on the road, who on asking, disclosed their names as Dharmender and Gaurav. They were informed that the police suspect illegal weapon in the bag being carried by Sachin Sharma @ Golu and they were requested to be witness of recovery, who gave their consent and thus they were joined in the investigation. On checking the bag, one country made pistol and one revolver was recovered. Besides this, 26 notes of Rs.500/- denomination, total amounting to Rs.13,000/- and one mobile phone of Mark Samsung was also recovered. Recovered country made pistol along with 06 live rounds kept in plastic jar were duly stamped and sketch of recovered pistol and 10 rounds along with cover in plastic jar was duly stamped and parcels were prepared. Recovered currency notes and mobile phone were kept in envelop and parcel were stamped along with the bag. The ruqa was sent for registration of the case. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner, namely, Manoj surfaced as the supplier of the arms recovered and thus the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in the present case but the petitioner remained at large and could not be arrested. Thus apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. However after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 19.04.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from him, however he has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, Sachin Sharma @ Golu, which in itself is not an admissible evidence. He has submitted that co-accused, Sachin Sharma @ Golu, on whose disclosure the petitioner has been named as the accused, is not in connection with the petitioner from past 4-5 years and thus there is no evidence regarding proximity of the petitioner with the co-accused. He has submitted that the petitioner was never aware about any FIR having been registered against him, however when the police came to search him, it is only then the petitioner came to know about any case having been registered against him. He has submitted that four disclosure statements of the co-accused were recorded but name of the petitioner surfaced in the third disclosure statement of co-accused, which in itself shows that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in a deliberated man