In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 09.09.2025 Pronounced On: 11.09.2025 Amit alias Salli ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 188, 269, 270. 302 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, FIR No. 75 dated 04.06.2021 has been lodged in Police Station Bahin, District Palwal. During the course of investigation of above mentioned case, the petitioner was arrested on 06.07.2021. The petitioner is in custody since then, and therefore, he is craving for benefit of bail. This is first petition filed by the petitioner, for bail.

2. According to complainant, due to party faction and enmity in the village, on 03.06.2021 at about 8.45 P.M., all the accused, namely Vicky alias Vikas, Rahul, Hoshiar, Amit alias Salli, the petitioner, Bhupender alias I attest to the accuracBy aangderi, Lokesh Sagar, Shakti and 10-12 unknown persons came on 8-10 motorcycles at the instance of Ex-Sarpanch, namely Mahender. According to complainant, Vicky alias Vikas, Amit (the petitioner), Rahul and Bhupender launched attack upon the complainant’s brother Digambar alias Diggal, fired gunshots and inflicted injuries on his person. It was detailed by the complainant that in the above mentioned incident, his brother-Digambar alias Diggal had suffered injuries which proved to be fatal.

3. As per the case set out by the prosecution, in view of the above mentioned complaint, a formal FIR was lodged in this case and the petitioner, and his accomplices arrested.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction and rivalry in the village. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to present case, the petitioner was taken into custody on 06.07.2021, and since then he is in custody continuously for a period of four years two months and two days.

6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the First Information Report, the description of weapon used by the accused and the nature of injury suffered due to role attributed to the petitioner have not been detailed, and therefore, the contents of FIR are vague and inconclusive.

7. In addition to above, it has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case is founded upon a plea that the cause of death of deceased was two bullet injuries suffered by him and that the calibre of above bullets, found inside the body of deceased, was of 7.65 bore, whereas the calibre of gun recovered from the possession of the accused, was 3.15 bore. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the 7.65 bore gun was recovered from the possession of co-accused, namely Rahul and not from the possession of the petitioner.

8. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and that detention of the petitioner, who has already suffered sufficient incarceration for a period of more than four years, is not likely to serve any purpose, and therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of bail.

9. Per contra, the learned State counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has contended that the petitioner has a coloured history, as that the custody certificate shows that in addition to present case, the petitioner has been prosecuted in eight other cases also. It has also been pointed out by learned State counsel that in one of the cases, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354-D, 509, 120-B, 452 and 201 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced