Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj @ Deshi vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-70933-2025 -1-
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-70933-2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Neeraj @ Deshi ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.631 dated 11.12.2024, registered under Sections 109(1), 126, 3(5), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant Nitish. It was alleged that about 20-25 days earlier, the complainant had minor altercation with Neeraj @ Deshi, Pardeep @ Painter and Vipin regarding bike collision, however no report was lodged in that regard and since then there was rivalry between them. On 11.12.2024, the complainant along with his friends Mohit, Ankit, Yogesh and Hemu were going to their houses on two motorcycles bearing registration No.HR-34H-6315 and HR-16T-9479 after taking fuel from petrol pump for marriage ceremony and when they reached near the plot of Amarpal, Neeraj @ Deshi, Pardeep @ Painter, Vipin and Navliya forcibly stopped their motorcycles and started beating them with lathis and dandas. SHARMILA DEVI 2026.04.30 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-70933-2025 -2- Neeraj @ Deshi fired shot at the complainant with an intention to kill him, but the complainant saved himself by bending down. Thereafter, they all threatened to kill him and his friends and fled away with their respective lathi, danda, sua and pistol. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrrested on 22.08.2025. On completion of investigation, challan was preseneted and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has been alleged to have fired shot, however, the same did not hit anyone. Thus, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case for causing no injury to anyone. He contends that the petitioner was falsely implicated in two other cases, however, he is on bail in those cases. He further contends that the complainant and the injured witness already stand examined and thus, there is no probability of petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses. He, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the SHARMILA DEVI 2026.04.30 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-70933-2025 -3- submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner fired on the complainant and one empty cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. He contends that weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner in another FIR No.248 dated 19.05.2025. On instructions, he submits that out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses i.e. the complainant and the injured have been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that though the allegation against the petitioner is regarding firing at the complainant, however, it is an admitted fact of the prosecution that there is no fire arm injury suffered by anyone. The complainant and the injured already stand examined. The custody certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 08 months & 07 days as on 28.04.2026. It further shows that the petitioner is facing prosecution in two other cases, out of which in one case, he is on bail.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the SHARMILA DEVI 2026.04.30 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-70933-2025 -4- satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. It is being clarified that in case the petitioner does not furnish bail/surety bonds within a period of one week from today, his custody will not be counted in the present case after one week.
9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No2
SHARMILA DEVI
2026.04.30 19:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document