Rohit Chikkara v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 ROHIT CHIKKARA ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :

Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate, for the petitioner. (through VC) Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana.

**** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.172, dated 03.05.2025, under Sections 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 29 of Arms Act and Section 55 (read with Sections 103(1) of BNS), 2023 Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

2.

On 01.12.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench had passed the following order:- "1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.172, dated 03.05.2025, under Sections 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 29 of Arms Act and Section 55 (read with Sections 103(1) of BNS), 2023 Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

2. Status report dated 27.11.2025 by way of affidavit of Pardeep Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bahadurgarh has been filed on behalf of respondent-State and the same is taken on record.

3. I have been heard counsel counsel for the parties and material on file has been perused.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, the Investigating Officer namely HC Pawan Kumar reached City Hotel, Rohtak-Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh, on the basis of secret information that two persons namely Gaurav and Krishan Kant are present in the said hotel and are carrying illegal weapons. Thereafter, both the said accused persons were apprehended, who disclosed to the police that they came to Bahadurgarh to sell two pistols and seven live cartridges to Rohit Chhikara (petitioner). Thereafter, accused Gaurav got recovered one pistol 315 bore and four live cartridges and the other

-2accused Krishan Kant got recovered one pistol and three live cartridges. Formal FIR under Section 25(1-b) (a) of Arms Act was registered. On 03.05.2025, they further disclosed that they had brought these pistols from Silu, resident of Sijwah, District Mahoba, Police Station Srinagar Uttar Pradesh, who had told them to kill a person, whose name will be disclosed by Rohit Chhikara (petitioner). Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statements of both the accused, a raid was conducted at the house of Shalender @ Silu and he was arrested. Said Shalender @ Silu suffered disclosure statement to the effect that these recovered pistols and cartridges were given to him by Akhil and only Akhil can tell about them from where he had brought these pistols and cartridges. Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for bail but the same was rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has been nominated as an accused by main accused namely Gaurav and Krishan Kant, from whom two pistols and seven cartriges were recovered. Statements suffered by both the accused are not admissible in evidence and cannot be used against him. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in view of the gravity of the offence.

7. Adjourned to 28.01.2026 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of him arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;

iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section." 3.

Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-mentioned order, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating agency requires the petitioner to appear, he shall make himself available without demur.

-34.

Learned State counsel on instructions from the investigating officer affirms the factum of joining the investigation by the petitioner and cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 01.12.2025 granting interim bail to him, is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

6.

However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail granted to him.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) 28.01.2026 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No