IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 Date of decision: 14.10.2025 AMIT ALIAS KHURCHAN ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 843 dated 02.10.2022, registered under Section(s) 148, 149, 302, 506, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he had been nominated in the present case on the disclosure statement of co-accused. He further contends that only 02 prosecution witnesses (eye witness and the complainant) out of the total 25 have been examined so far, but both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2022 and case of the petitioner would be very similar to the case of the co-accused Sahil to whom regular bail has been granted by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in CRM-M-23606-2025.

3. Counsel for the respondent-State does not controvert the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

5. In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration the period of actual custody, the stage of trial, both the prosecution witnesses (eye witness as well as the complainant) not supporting the case of the prosecution and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents coupled with the circumstance that co-accused Sahil has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.10.2025, thus in order to extend parity and keeping the case of the present petitioner at par with the co-accused, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

8. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

OCTOBER 14, 2025 JUDGE

Vishal Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No