IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.01.2026 AMAN KUMAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(cid:1)

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.198 dated 14.07.2025 registered under Sections 109(1), 351(3) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act [Section 238(b) of BNS and Section 29 of Arms Act added later on and Section 61 of BNS removed] at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjhar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Bijender alleging that on the evening of 14.07.2025, he alongwith his cousin Suresh had gone to his fields where the petitioner had reached alongwith one unknown person. A verbal altercation had taken place between them. The father of the petitioner made a call to the complainant on the phone of the petitioner and asked him to leave that place; otherwise he would be killed by the petitioner. On hearing this, the complainant and his cousin left the fields on their motorbike but the petitioner followed them and fired two shots with his pistol that hit the complainant and his cousin brother. Thereafter the petitioner fled away. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered the countrymade pistol used by him in the commission of subject offence. Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. His antecedents are clean. The injuries sustained by the victims were not opined to be dangerous to life and as such the provisions of Section 109 of BNS are not attracted. As per the FSL report, the cartridge recovered from the body of one of the person victim was not fired from the countrymade pistol recovered from the petitioner. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to kill the complainant and his cousin on 14.07.2025 by firing shots with a pistol upon them. The said pistol had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, however, as per the FSL report, the bullet taken out from the leg of the injured Bijender Singh has not been fired by the said pistol rather the same could be fired from .32 revolver. As such it is a debatable question as to whether the petitioner had used the recovered pistol for the purpose of firing upon the victims. The petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2025. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will obviously take time to conclude since only charges have been framed and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Though the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the subject offences, however, keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in cus