Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khushhal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-958-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208 CRM-M-958-2026
Date of decision: 29th April, 2026
Khushhal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 351 dated 27.05.2025 registered under Section 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Bhuwan Singh, alleging therein that he was working as a salesman in the liquor vend of one Ashish Ghai. In the morning of 27.05.2025, he had opened the shutter of the liquor vend and as soon as he entered inside, a youth with covered face entered therein. He threw some papers inside the liquor vend and then fired 10-12 rounds with some PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.04.30 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-958-2026 -2- firearm thereby damaging windowpane of the liquor vend. The complainant had a narrow escape. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused Sohard @ Munna who was arrested in another case, suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in this case and disclosed that he along with his friend Manjot Singh had joined Kaushal Gang and Bhambhiya gang. On 21.05.2025, he had received a call from accused Manjot through Zangi App from abroad who told him to use firearm on the liquor vend wherein the complainant was working. The accused Sohard @ Munna also disclosed that, as informed by accused Manjot, Hemant Rana had come to him. Both of them had conducted recee of liquor vend and accused Sohard @ Munna had then procured some weapons from a place as disclosed by accused Manjot. He further stated that on 27.05.2025, he along with accused Rohit @ Kartoos had committed the occurrence by covering their faces. Offences under Sections 111(2) and 238(c) of BNS were invoked. The accused Sohard @ Munna got recovered the bike used at the time of occurrence and identified the places from where he had picked up weapons and cartridges.
4. As per the further allegations, the accused Sohard @ Munna who was arrested in another case suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the present case. On the basis of his disclosure, accused Manjot and Hemant Rana @ Shubham were nominated as additional accused. Accused Hemant Rana was arrested. The present petitioner was arrested on PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.04.30 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-958-2026 -3- the basis of a secret information on 07.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he was acquainted with accused Manjot Singh, who has been living abroad and had formed a gang. The said accused had allured him for joining his gang which was involved in extending threats to liquor contractors at Yamuna Nagar for the purpose of extorting money. On asking of Manjot Singh, he had given cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- to accused Sohard @ Munna for his household expenses and that was accused Sohard @ Munna and Rohit @ Kartoos who had fired shots at the liquor vend. Investigation now stands completed.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. The role that has been attributed to him is of giving cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- to accused Sohard @ Munna. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted against him as neither he had made an attempt to kill any person, nor he formed membership of any gang. He was named in second disclosure statement of co-accused Sohard @ Munna which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. The trial will take considerable time to conclude, as only 02 witnesses, that too partly, have been examined out of 24 prosecution witnesses. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.04.30 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-958-2026 -4- petitioner formed membership of a notorious gang, involved in extorting money from public persons by overawing them by using firearms at their places of work/home. He had facilitated the co-accused, who had fired shots outside the liquor vend of the complainant. The petitioner is a habitual offender. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
8. The petitioner is alleged to have harboured the co-accused Sohard @ Munna, who being member of the same gang as that of the petitioner, had fired shots outside the liquor vend, wherein the complainant was working. The petitioner is alleged to have facilitated the accused Sohard @ Munna by giving a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to him. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. No recovery has been effected from him. As per the prosecution case itself, he is not the person who had actually fired shots with a firearm at the place of occurrence. The petitioner has been in custody since 07.11.2025. He cannot be denied benefit of bail due to his involvement in other cases. The trial will obviously take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentence and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Taking into consideration the nature of the subject PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.04.30 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-958-2026 -5- offences, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 29th April, 2026 Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.04.30 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document