Ankit Alias Chuchu v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207(i) Date of Decision: 02.08.2025 ANKIT @ CHUCHU ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 in case FIR No. 156 dated 07.03.2022 under Sections 25 Arms Act, 302 and 34 IPC (offence under Sections 216, 212, 201, 120-B of IPC were added) registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony Rohtak, District Rohtak. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, along with his brother, Hans Raj, resides in village Ritauli. His brother owns a bus operated by a private Society. On March 7, 2022, the complainant was informed that three individuals arrived on a motorcycle and shot at his brother, and thereafter fled away from the spot toward village of Gochi. The petitioner is accused of having conspired with his co-accused to kill the complainant's brother. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. The petitioner has been named in the supplementary statement suffered by one Shukrampal, who is the cousin of the

-2deceased Hansraj @ Hanse. During the investigation, the complainant submitted an application to the Investigating Agency, in which he alleged the involvement of certain persons in conspiracy to kill his brother Hansraj @ Hanse. He further submits that certain weapons have been recovered but the weapon recovered from the petitioner did not match with the bullet recovered from the deceased's body. He further submits that there is no direct evidence to implicate the petitioner.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and reply in the Court today, which are taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years and 10 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He further submits on instructions from SI-Surinder that out of 52 cited prosecution witnesses only 31 witnesses have been examined and conclusion of trial will take long time.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years and 10 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, thereafter, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

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.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 02.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No