Rahul v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.11.2025 RAHUL ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 238 dated 26.08.2025 under Sections 25(1), 54, 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Julana, District Jind, Haryana.

2.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 26.08.2025, ASI Surender Kumar (566/Jind), CIA Staff Jind, along with Constable Sonu Kumar (741), SPO Jitender Singh (934), and EHC Pradeep Kumar (900) driving a government vehicle bearing registration No. HR-31GV-3596 equipped with a laptop and printer, was on patrolling in connection with an operation against illegal weapons. When the police party reached near the Water Supply gate of village Gatauli, they noticed a young boy standing on the road who, upon seeing the police vehicle, began to walk briskly towards the Gatauli Bus Stand. Suspecting his behavior, the police apprehended him. On inquiry, he disclosed

-2his name as Sachin alias Gandhi, son of Jitender, resident of Gatauli, District Jind. When a search was conducted, a .32 bore country-made pistol was recovered from the left pocket of the trousers he was wearing. He was asked to produce a valid licence for the weapon but failed to do so. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Sachin. It is further submitted that the co-accused has already been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2025. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to join and cooperate with the investigation. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed a reply in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the ld. counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. He further submits that an illegal firearm was recovered from the drawing room (veranda) of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases and has a history of repeated offences. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 6.

I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery effected, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and his involvement in multiple other cases, this Court finds that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

-3bail at this stage. The nature of the offence, along with the potential threat to public safety and the likelihood of repetition of similar acts, further disentitle the petitioner from seeking the benefit of bail. 8.



 

  

 

   



 

    

(H.S.GREWAL) 29.11.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No