Yash Yadav v. State Of Haryana

-1- CRM-M-38466-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38466-2025 Date of decision: 25.07.2025 YASH YADAV ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with
 R.K. Trikha, Advocate and 
 Satish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)   The present petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.668 dated 02.11.2023 under Sections 302, 120- IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 29(b) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sector-10A, Gurugram. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had fired 03 shots from a fire arm at his father namely Rajbir Singh, who died on the spot and it is also stated that the petitioner had fired shot at the arm of Sarita, to make out a case that the incident had taken place in self-defence. It is submitted that in fact, it was Rajbir who had fired at Sarita and thereafter, in self-defence, Sarita had taken the weapon and fired at the deceased-Rajbir. Moreover, the prosecution has still not been able to explain as to how the gun shot residue was found in the hands of the deceased as the gun shot residue found in the hands of the

-2- CRM-M-38466-2025 (O&M) deceased does not explain the sequence of events, as made out by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no evidence against the petitioner apart from the disclosure statement of the present petitioner as well as of Sarita. Also, it is submitted that the motive for false implication is stated to be that the brother of the deceased is the beneficiary of the land left by the deceased-brother who is also the author of the present FIR.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2023 and has already undergone custody period of more than 01 years and 08 months.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State   

   

                         

                   ! 

        

   "   7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner is 01 year, 08 months and 15 days and out of 45, only 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice and also conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time. Therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the

-3- CRM-M-38466-2025 (O&M) petitioner.

9.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

25th July, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No