Deepak v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-56559-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.11.2024 Deepak ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 22.7.2024 Model Town, District Rewari 109(1), 3(5) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) & Sections 25(1-B)(a), 27(1) of Arms Act, wherein offence under Section 238(3) of BNS was added later on GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Manish, wherein it is alleged that on 22.7.2024 when he alongwith Billu, Virender and Nitin were present at the plot of Bhupender near flyover of Reliance Oil Depot, then three persons namely Ravinder, Deepak, Raj Kumar @ Raju came there and picked up a fight with them and Deepak is alleged to have fired 3 shots from a pistol. One of the shot is stated to have hit the thigh of the complainant. Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.19 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-56559-2024 (O&M) ( 2 ) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR came to be lodged under some misunderstanding, which has now been resolved and the matter has been amicably compromised amongst the parties. 4.

Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the petition on the ground that having regard to the serious and direct allegations against the petition, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5.

Mr. Kanav Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He has endorsed the factum of compromise. Learned counsel representing the complainant further stated that the complainant does not have any objection in case the petitioner is granted bail.

6.

As per the custody certificate filed by learned State counsel today in Court, the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3 months and 24 days. The custody certificate is taken on record.

7.

Having regard to the fact that the matter is stated to have been compromied amongst the parties and challan has already been presented and the petitioner otherwise has been behind bars since the last about 3 months and 24 days, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified. 8.

The instant petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 19.11.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.19 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document