Deepak v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.52392 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.52392 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.9.2025 Deepak .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.197 dated 16.5.2022, under Sections 302, 379-B, 120-B, 511, 34 and 216 of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Jhajjar. 2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'To SHO Sahab City police station JhajjarSir Itis prayed that that 1 Surender son of Ramesh Kumar resident of Gwalishan I do work of money transfer by taking a shop on rent in front of Sabzi Mandi Jhajjar. Sonu son of Suresh resident of Gwalishan also used to do money transfer work in the shop next to mine. Since we both are from the same village we used to come and go together. Today at around 08:15 PM Sonu Manjeet son of Ramesh resident of Gwalishan closed the shop and started leaving then threefour young boys who had tied cloth on their mouths fired at Sonu who

CRM-M No.52392 of 2025 -2fell after being shot in the chest. When we made noise they ran towards the road. Then I told about the incident to SAREEPAL who is brother in law of brother of Sonu and SAREEPAL arrived at the spot after some time and we took Sonu to the hospital. They took him to the hospital in Jhajjar where the doctor declared him dead About a week ago sister in law of Sonu told that Sonu had given a lot of money to a person named Lala and I do not know any reason for this Sonu son of Suresh resident of Gwalishan has been shot dead by three four persons whose name and address are unknown Action should be taken against them and Lala should also be found out and interrogated so that the truth can be revealed Strictest action should be taken against the accused. SD Surender Kumar Surender Kumarson of Ramesh Kumar village Gwalishan 9992616173, 16/05/2022.'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the case of the prosecution it is death case of deceased namely Sonu which is allegedly, a single injury case, and the role has been attributed to one Yogesh for causing gun shot injury to the deceased. Learned counsel has further argued that no role has been attributed to the petitioner, and the alleged eye-witnesses namely Surender-PW1, who is complainant alongwith another eye witness namely Manjeet-PW2, have not identified the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that in the present case, the petitioner is behind bars since 24.05.2022 and has undergone 3 years, 3 months and 26 days of custody. He further contends that out of 23 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 11 have been examined so far.

4.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail by way of filing custody certificate dated 19.9.2025. However, he does not refute the fact that out of 23 prosecution

CRM-M No.52392 of 2025 -3witnesses, only 11 have been examined so far. 5.

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

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a period of 3 years, 3 months and 26 days and only 11 witnesses out of total 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and since, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time and as such, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

CRM-M No.52392 of 2025 -4which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 22.9.2025 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No