STATE OF HARYANA v. MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Sanawar Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 132 dated 19.04.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 221, 132 and 238(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 34, 186, 353 and 201 IPC), Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal, during the pendency of the trial.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by complainant SI Jaibeer Singh alleging that on the intervening night of 18/19.04.2025, he along with other police officials was present on patrolling and crime checking duty. During the said duty, a secret informer informed the police that a wanted accused namely Riyasat @ Bhoora, who was habitual of committing theft of tower batteries, was roaming in the area along with his associates in a pick- ANU 2026.03.13 17:39 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12494-2026 2 up vehicle. Acting upon the said information, the police party laid barricades near Yamuna Bridge at Haryana–U.P. Border and attempted to stop the suspected vehicle. It is further alleged that when the police signalled the pick-up vehicle to stop, the accused persons attempted to flee and pelted stones at the police vehicle and also fired shots in order to escape. The police party chased the vehicle and during the chase the pick-up vehicle overturned near the fields on the U.P. side. Two persons namely Riyasat @ Bhoora and the present petitioner Aslam were apprehended at the spot while other persons managed to escape. On checking the pick-up vehicle, batteries of mobile towers were allegedly recovered, and upon failure to produce ownership documents for the same, the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the offence under Section 307 IPC/Section 109(1) BNS has been invoked, yet the present case is a no-injury case. The only allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused is that some shots were allegedly fired towards the police vehicle with an intention to kill the members of the police party. However, it is contended that there was no such intention and nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner had any prior enmity or inimical relations with the police officials. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 20 days, the investigation in the case stands completed and the witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further argued that the trial is likely to take some time to ANU 2026.03.13 17:39 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12494-2026 3 conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

5. Notice of motion. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana accepts notice and has contested the present bail application. He has submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as he along with his co- accused attacked the police party when they were signalled to stop their vehicle. Instead of stopping, the accused persons allegedly attempted to flee from the spot and the police party chased them. It is further submitted that the persons travelling in the pick-up vehicle started pelting stones upon the government vehicle and also fired shots in order to escape. The police officials fired at the tyres of the pick-up vehicle, whereafter the vehicle overturned and the petitioner along with co-accused was apprehended at the spot while the remaining persons managed to flee away taking advantage of darkness. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. He has placed on record the custody certificate showing the custody of the petitioner as 10 months and 20 days.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 20 days. The investigation in the present case stands completed and challan has already been presented before the competent Court. The material witnesses are yet to be examined and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. It is also not disputed that the present case is a no-injury case and no member of the police party has sustained any ANU 2026.03.13 17:39 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12494-2026 4 injury in the alleged occurrence. The allegation against the petitioner is primarily that he along with the co-accused allegedly fired towards the police vehicle and attempted to flee from the spot.

7. Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner, the fact that investigation stands completed, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

13.03.2026 Anu (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No ANU 2026.03.13 17:39 I am the author of this document Chandigarh