Chetan Alias Chintu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 10.03.2026 CHETAN ALIAS CHINTU ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Savreet Brar, Advocate, for Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

CRM-10420-2026 1.

Present application has been moved by the applicant/petitioner for placing on record the orders, granting bail to the petitioner, as Annexures P-9 to P-24.

Notice in the application.

On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State, and raises no objection if prayer made in the present application, is allowed. Considering the averments mentioned in the application, prayer made in the application is allowed, and orders granting bail to the petitioner, are ordered to be taken on record as Annexures P-9 to P-24. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file. CM stands disposed of.

CRM-M- 14082-2025 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Chetan alias Chintu, aged about 25 years 675 14.11.2019 452, 148, 506 of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 307, 147 of IPC added later and section 149, 285 of IPC deleted later on) Ballabgarh Faridabad Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the allegations in the FIR, on 14.11.2019, five boys, including petitioner, came to the house of the complainant and enquired about the whereabouts of her son, Prashant. At that time, complainant, who was present on the roof of her house, informed them that her son Prashant was not at home. It is alleged that thereafter, petitioner fired a shot at the closed gate of the complainant's house, on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered.

Petitioner was initially arrested on 29.11.2019. However, subsequently he was arrested in another case and was produced in the present case on 06.01.2024, and he has been in custody ever since. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is a young boy aged about 25 years, and has been falsely implicated by the police in a number of criminal cases, apart from the present one. It is submitted that the orders, whereby petitioner has been granted bail in the other criminal cases registered against him, have been placed on record, vide order of even date passed in CRM-10420-2026. After hearing the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, on 20.08.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 452, 148, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act [Sections 307, 147 of IPC added later on and Sections 149, 285 of IPC deleted later on], in FIR No.675, dated 14.11.2019, registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Allegation in the FIR against the petitioner is that he fired a shot with a pistol, which hit the door and wall of the house, but did not cause any injury to anybody. At the first instance, petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), by noticing the deposition of the complainant, namely Sangeeta Sharma (PW1) and Sanchit Sharma, eyewitness (PW2), wherein both categorically stated that the accused persons (including the petitioner) are not the same persons who had fired the gunshot towards Sanchit Sharma.

After grant of bail by the trial Court, the petitioner was regularly attending the proceedings before the trial Court, but on 21.04.2023, he failed to appear, resulting in cancellation of his bail. Thereupon, petitioner was re-arrested on 06.01.2024 and since then, he is in custody.

It is also pointed out that out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far, and therefore, culmination of trial is likely to take considerable time. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail once again, by taking a sympathetic view.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and, apart from the present case, he is involved in as many as 20 other criminal cases under various offences. The details of said cases are also mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the petition, though all such cases are stated to be pending trial. Let an exhaustive status report be filed by the State, giving complete details of all the cases registered against the petitioner, along with his antecedents.

6.

List again on 10.11.2025."

6.

Thus, reiterating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, as out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined, till date. Thus, it is prayed that concession of regular bail be granted to the petitioner in the present case. 7.

In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 09.03.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

As per the custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone 04 years 05 months and 09 days period inside jail. 8.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that considering the gravity of the offence involved in the present case and the

fact that petitioner is a habitual offender, being involved in several other criminal cases, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. 9.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it. 10.

It is noticed that despite the alleged firing of shots, no person suffered any injury. It is further observed that complainant, namely Sangeeta Sharma (PW-1), and Sanchit Sharma (PW-2), who is stated to be an eye-witness, have both deposed before the trial Court and have categorically stated that petitioner is not the same person who had fired the gunshot towards Sanchit Sharma.

11.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here above, including the total period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and stage of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

12.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

13.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 14.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 10.03.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO