Arshdeep Singh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-40953-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.40953 of 2025 Date of decision : 31.07.2025 Arshdeep Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL
 Mr. Gurdarshan S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.59 dated 26.04.2025 under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126, 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 109, 190, 191(3) & 287 of BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Odhan, District Dabwali, Sirsa. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith his coaccused Vikas conspired to kill the complainant and fired a gun shot at him. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused namely Deepak, the fire arm which was used by him, had been handed over to the present petitioner which is yet to be recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no specific injury has been attributed to him in the alleged incident.

Sonia Puri 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-40953-2025 -24.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner are grave in nature and states that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required so as to recover the weapon allegedly used in the offence and thus, prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have considered the allegations made against the petitioner. However, in the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature and as such, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 6.

In view of above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

(H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE July 31, 2025 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document