Shivam v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.220 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 SHIVAM

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Bakul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 635 dated 12.08.2023 registered under Sections 307, 386, 285, 34, 120-B, 211 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(b), 25(7), 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, during the pendency of trial. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2023 at about 11:15 AM, two unidentified persons entered the premises of World Edu Scamper Institute, Yamuna Nagar and fired 5-6 shots at the glass windows as well as the main door of the institute and thereafter fled from the spot. Later in the evening of the same day, the owner of the institute, namely Manoj Sharma @ Monty, allegedly received a threatening call from a person claiming to be

a member of "Kala Rana Gang", demanding an amount of Rs. 5 crores. During investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, co-accused Ashish and the present petitioner Shivam were arrested. It is alleged that during interrogation, the petitioner Shivam suffered a disclosure statement and disclosed the involvement of other co-accused persons, namely Rahul, Virender Pratap @ Kala Rana and Bhanu @ Aashu, who were stated to be residing abroad and had allegedly hatched a conspiracy to extort money from the complainant. The main allegation against the petitioner Shivam is with regard to his involvement in the said conspiracy. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years and till date the complainant has not been examined. It is further submitted that out of total 41 prosecution witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused namely Rahul, Rohit, Ashish and Naveen have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and the case of the present petitioner is on parity with co-accused Ashish, who was also arrested on the basis of CCTV footage. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application and submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail as he is the main accused in the present case. It

is contended that the participation of the petitioner has been duly established from the CCTV footage of the institute. It is further submitted that in order to extort money from the owner of the institute, the petitioner along with his co-accused had fired gunshots at the premises. It is argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The petitioner is in custody for the last about two years. It is not in dispute that out of 41 prosecution witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined till date and even the complainant has not yet been examined. The trial is thus likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is also a matter of record that co-accused Rahul, Rohit, Ashish and Naveen have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on similar footing as that of co-accused Ashish, who was also arrested along with the present petitioner on the basis of CCTV footage. In such circumstances, the principle of parity is clearly attracted in favour of the petitioner. 6.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, but considering the custody period of the petitioner, the stage of trial and the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted bail, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 07.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No