Aman Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Manissha Batra, J

The present petition has been preeferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.198 dated 14.07.2025 registered under Sections 109(1), 351(3) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act [Section 238(b) of BNS and Section 29 of Arms Act added later on and Section 61 of BNS removed] at Police Station Beeri, District Jhajjhar.

The aforementioned FIR was regisstered on the basis of a written complaint submiitted by complainant Bijender alleging that on the evening of 14.07.2025, he alongwith his cousin Suresh haad gone to his fields where the petitioner had reached alongwith one unknown person. A verbal altercation had taken place betwween them. The father of thee petitioner made a call to the complainant on the phone of the petitioner and asked him to leave that place; otherwise he would be killed by the petitioner. On hearing this, the complainant and his cousin leeft the fields on their motorbike but the petitioner followed them and fired two shots with his pistol that hit the complainant and his cousin brother. Thereafter the petitioner fled awayy. After registration of FIR,, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered the countrymade pistol used by him in the commission of subject offence. Investigation now stands concluded.

It iss argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. His antecedents are clean. The injuries sustained byy the victims were not opined to be dangerous to life and as such the provisions of Section 109 of BNS are not attracted. As per the FSL report, the cartridge recovered from the body of one of the person vicctim was not fired from the countrymade pistol recovered from the petitioner. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore,, urged that the petitioner deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious alleegations against the petitioner. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

Thiss Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the partiies at considerable length.

The petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to kill the complainant and his cousin on 14.07.2025 by firing shots with a pistol upon them. The saidd pistol had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, however, as per the FSL report, the bullet taken out from the leg of the injured Bijennder Singh has not been fired byy the said pistol rather the same could be fired from .32 revolver. As such itt is a debatable question as to whether the petiitioner had used the recovered pistol for the purpose of firing upon the victims. The petitioner is in custodyy since 17.07.2025. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will obviously take time to conclude since only charges have been framed and no prosecution witness has been examined so farr. Though the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the subject offences, howeverr, keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custodyy anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration shall not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. Even otherwise bail is the rule and jail is an exception. In view of the abbove discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and thee petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the extent of two sureties and to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and leearned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any innducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the faacts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any ciircumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing.

(iv) The petitioner shall provide his address where he would be reesiding after release and shall not change the same without innforming the concerned IO/SHO.

(vv) The petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO annd shall keep his mobile phone swwitched on all times.

(vvi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aaddhar card, and shall not change hiis mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shaall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seekiing cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Sincce the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.