Sachin Rapria @ Chinu vs State Of Haryana

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.93 dated 12.6.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-AAA), 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29 of Arms Act and Sections 55 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Mohana, District Sonipat.

The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of one norinco fire-arm from co-accused Vedraj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that only one fire-arm was recovered from the co-accused namely Vedraj and the petitioner was subsequently involved in FIR on the disclosure of the said co-accused. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a Central Government employee and is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.8.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 4.7.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 3.8.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

As per custody certificate dated 3.8.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about 01 month & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially there being debatable issues arising from the case, the petitioner not being apprehended at the spot, no effective recovery has been made from the petitioner, the petitioner being implicated primarily on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, the petitioner being a man with clean antecedents; this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/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.

Ordered accordingly.

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