The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-23700-2025 1 239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.23700 of 2025 Date of decision : 27.08.2025 Deepak State of Haryana versus .....Petitioner ..... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Sumit S. Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.210, dated 05.06.2024, under Sections 285, 387, 307, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25(6), 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal, District Karnal, Haryana. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, KD Son of Karam Singh. It was alleged that he was working as the Gunman of trading company of Amrik Singh Virk, Noor Trading company. On 11.05.2024, his employer received a call through whatsapp from a person, namely, Bhanu Rana, who threatened to kill Amrik Singh Virk or any other member of his family in order to extort money from him. Thereafter on 18.05.2024, again an extortion call was made through whatsapp from different mobile number. His employer, Amrik Singh Virk, lodged a case RITTU 2025.08.28 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23700-2025 2 bearing No.196, dated 29.05.2024, under Section 387 IPC, at Police Station Civil Line Karnal. On 05.06.2024, at about 4:00 P.M., when he was in his office, a young boy, who was covering his face, climbed the stairs of his office and fired from the pistol, which he was holding, however, the fire shot did not hit him. He closed the door of the office and thereafter, he again fired 02 shots and fled away from the scene of occurrence. It was alleged that this incident had taken place at the behest of Bhanu Rana with intention to extort money from Amrik Singh Virk. The request was made to take legal action against the culprit. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and thus, he was arrested on 06.06.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, praying for the grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-4594-2025 praying for the grant of bail, however the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 19.02.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present second petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to have carried out a recce. He has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy, being 19 years of age, and he is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 06.06.2024 and has RITTU 2025.08.28 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23700-2025 3 completed incarceration of about 01 year and 02 months, however there is no progress in the trial. He has submitted that the complainant has been examined but he has not supported the case of prosecution. He has further submitted that though the petitioner is involved in one more case, however he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Arman Kumar, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRM-M- 13852-2025 and thus, case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co- accused. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the charges were framed on 02.08.2024. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. She has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case. She has endorsed the fact that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Arman Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court. 5. 6. Heard. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the complicity of the petitioner surfaced in the present case, during the investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2024. As submitted before this Court, out of total 25 prosecution witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined. Complainant has been examined but he has not supported the case of prosecution. Custody certificate produced RITTU 2025.08.28 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23700-2025 4 would show that the petitioner has completed an incarceration of 01 year, 02 months and 16 days as on 26.08.2025. Custody certificate further reflects that the petitioner in involved in one more case, however he has been acquitted in that case. Co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court. 7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus, keeping in view the fact that petitioner is a juvenile and long incarceration is likely to affect his future adversely, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on parity. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No case. 27.08.2025 rittu RITTU 2025.08.28 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document