IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14^th May, 2026 Satbir ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 08 dated 11.01.2026 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3),190, 126(2) 324(4) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section

25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Harsh Kumar Gautam alleging therein that on 10.01.2026, he had gone to village Redhuwas to bring his maternal grandmother back from the house of her maternal aunt (masi). He had reached there along with his friends in a Creta vehicle belonging to one of his friends, who accompanied him in another Verna vehicle. When they reached near the house of his maternal aunt, he found that the petitioner accompanied by the co-accused to be present in the street. All of them stopped their way. As soon as the complainant alighted from the Creta vehicle, accused Manish Kumar made an exhortation proclaiming that the complainant was the cousin brother of Kapil and asked Lala and Jaila to shot him. The complainant then heard sounds of some shot being fired from the roof of the abetting house. To save himself, he sat down due to which he had a narrow escape as the bullet passed just above his head. He started running to save himself but the petitioner and the co-accused restrained him and opened an assault upon him by striking blows with lathis, dandas, jailies and iron rods. They damaged his vehicle. Accused Nasib kept a pistol on his abdomen and proclaimed that they would kill the entire family of Kapil. The complainant and his companions somehow saved themselves by managing to flee. The motive attributed to the assailants was some land dispute between his cousin brother Kapil and the petitioner and co-accused Maan Singh, Dilbagh and Kundan Lal. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to dispute of possession over agricultural land. No specific injury has been attributed to him. He is not required for further investigation. He is in custody since long. A compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and himself, which has been reduced into writing. The complainant has no objection, if he is extended benefit of bail. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been placed on record by learned State counsel. It is argued by him that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the factum of compromise as well as the fact that a petition for quashing of the FIR by way of compromise has been filed and the statements of the parties have been recorded in the same.

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

7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly is alleged to have voluntarily caused injur