##PAGE1##

CRM-M-23783-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.220

CRM-M-23783-2026

Date of Decision: 12.05.2026

SAHIL ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present:- Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. Present is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 355 dated 08.12.2025,

registered under Sections 190, 191(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 148, 149 of IPC) and Sections

25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak,

Haryana.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR was

registered on the complaint of Satish alleging that on 08.12.2025, an incident

of firing took place on the Ghilod to Chhichhdana road wherein certain

persons allegedly fired shots with an intention to kill the complainant Satish

and his son. In the said occurrence, accused Vishal @ Vicky son of Rajesh,

Pardeep and Himanshu were identified and legal action was sought against

ANU

2026.05.12 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-23783-2026 2

them. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR came to be

registered. During investigation, accused Vishal and Pardeep were arrested

and their disclosure statements were recorded pursuant to which vehicles

and a country-made pistol were allegedly recovered. The present petitioner

Sahil son of Jitendra was arrested subsequently on 16.01.2026 during the

course of investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted

that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific role or motive

has been attributed to him. Counsel further submits that the present case is a

no injury case and the petitioner was not present at the spot. It is further

argued that the petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused Vishal @ Vicky and no recovery has been effected

from his conscious possession. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner

has been in custody since 16.01.2026, investigation stands completed,

challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable

time as no prosecution witness has been examined till date.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a reply, which

has been taken on record, opposing the present petition. It has been argued

that the specific role attributed to the petitioner is that he, along with co-

accused Vishal @ Vicky, accompanied the other co-accused with the

intention of killing the complainant and his son. It has further been argued

that the petitioner was very much present at the spot and had reached there

in a Venue car. Learned State counsel further submits that as per his

ANU

2026.05.12 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-23783-2026 3

disclosure statement, the petitioner demarcated the place of occurrence. It is

also argued that two other FIRs have been registered against the present

petitioner. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner has remained in

custody for the last seven months and five days.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the paper-book. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR

and has been nominated during investigation on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused Vishal @ Vicky. No recovery has been effected

from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that

the present case is a no injury case. The petitioner has remained in custody

for the last seven months and five days. Investigation already stands

completed and challan has been presented before the trial Court. Further, the

conclusion