##PAGE1##

219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.12789 of 2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2025 RAMNIWAS ALIAS KALLU

…Petitioner Versus

STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.343 dated 15.07.2025, registered under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 307 and 34 IPC, 1860) and Sections 25 and 27 of

the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurugram.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2025 at about 05:50 PM, the complainant Rahul was going towards SPR Road via Baharampur Road from his village Fazilpur in his Thar vehicle bearing registration No. HR-98-0008. It is alleged that his vehicle was overtaken by a Tata Punch car bearing registration number of HR-10 series, which intercepted his vehicle, whereupon two persons alighted from

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.12789 of 2026 -2-

the said car, one of them being armed with a pistol. The complainant reversed his vehicle, whereafter the armed person fired a shot at him, which missed and hit a pole, and the complainant managed to escape. The assailants fled from the spot and it was noticed that 3–4 persons were present in the said car. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. During investigation, the vehicle used in the commission of the offence was taken into possession and several accused persons were arrested at different stages, whose disclosure statements were recorded. Mobile phones and other material were also taken into possession and CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was collected. After completion of investigation against some of the accused, final report was presented before the Court and thereafter other accused persons were also arrested subsequently in connection with

the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that his implication is solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Vishal Chauhan, who has given contradictory versions in his statements, and such disclosure statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and there is no independent or corroborative evidence connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in another case and, therefore, his involvement

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.12789 of 2026 -3-

in the present occurrence is highly doubtful. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been formally arrested in the present case through production warrants and has been in custody since 08.10.2025. It is contended that the investigation stands completed and final report has already been filed, and the case is now pending trial, which is likely to take considerable time as a large number of prosecution witnesses are cited. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court and assures that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence or

influence the witnesses.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and submitte