Regular bail may be granted when there is no specific role of violence attributed to the accused, the evidence is primarily based on disclosure statements, and the trial is significantly delayed with no witnesses examined despite prolonged custody.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) ( Section 439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.309 dated 26.12.2024 registered under Sections 103(2), 109(1), 324(5) of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, final report presented under Sections 103(2), 111(2)(a), 190, 191(3), 238(a), 324(5), 48, 49, 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and charges framed under Sections 103(2), 111(2)(a), 111(3), 111(4), 324(5) read with 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was got registered on the statement of Narender Singh that on 26.12.2024, he received a phone call that some unknown persons fired shots on his cousin Virender outside Power Gym at Kheri Lakha Singh and he was being taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. On reaching the hospital, he came to know that one Arjun was injured and his cousin Virender and one Pankaj had died in the incident. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he had dropped co-accused Arbaj Khan in his car from a restaurant to his residence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR. The actual firing is attributed to Romil Vohra, Shubham Pandit. Romil Vohra has since died in an encounter and Shubham Pandit is not arrested yet. The petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 06 months and 09 days. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 06 months and 09 days and out of total cited 126 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that no specific role of firing or causing injuries has been attributed to the petitioner; apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 06 months and 09 days; out of total cited 126 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; conclusion of trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the inst