Rahul Alias Numberdar Alias Bunty vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5299 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5299 P&H
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rahul Alias Numberdar Alias Bunty vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2025

                                                                           1

CRM-
CRM-M-63735-
      63735-2025




238
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                            CRM-
                            CRM-M-63735-
                                  63735-2025

Rahul @ Numberdar @ Bunty
                                                               ....Petitioner
                                                                 Petitioner
                                     Versus

State of Haryana
                                                             ....Respondent

Date of decision: November 18
                           18, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 18, 2025

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

                                     *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.237 dated 07.07.2025,,

registered for the offences punishable under Sectionss 109(1), 115, 190,

191(3) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS')

(Sections 238-A 238 & 351(3) of the BNS added and Section 351(2) of the BNS

deleted later on) and Sections 25-54-59 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 1959, at Police

Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 07.07.2025,, a

complaint was submitted by Prem Singh against Pintu, Rohit, Shubham, and

Sudhir,, along with 7-88 unidentified persons who were present in several

vehicles. The complainant com stated that on 06.07.2025 06.07.2025, his elder son,, namely,

1 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-63735- 63735-2025

Ravinder was standing in the village when a vehicle approached from the

opposite side, ran over his foot, and fled from the spot. Shortly thereafter,

the same vehicle returned, and Ravinder stopped it. At that time, Rohit,

Pintu, and some other boys were found inside the car. When Ravinder

questioned them about running over his foot, they began abusing and

threatening him. Ravinder narrated the entire incident to his father at home.

It is further alleged that Pintu later threatened Ravinder over the phone,

calling him to Noor Mahal and again warning that he would "see him in the

village." On 07.07.2025 at about 2:45 PM, Pintu, Rohit, Shubham, and

Sudhir, along with 7-8 unknown persons, arrived on the main road of the

village in multiple cars, armed with weapons, lathis, and dandas. Acting in

concert, they allegedly assaulted Ravinder and his brother Saurabh. The

complainant later came to know that the accused had also fired shots at them

with the intention to kill. While leaving, the accused allegedly issued life

threats, after which Ravinder fled from the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 09.07.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further argued that name of the petitioner does not specifically

figure in the FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that, assuming

arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the role attributed to

the petitioner is of bringing his car to the spot in question in helping the

accused flee away. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner

has been implicated into the FIR in question primarily on the disclosure of

one Ajay Rana @ Pintu, who has been extended the concession of

2 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-63735- 63735-2025

anticipatory bail by this Court, no 22.09.2025. Thus, regular bail is prayed

for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature,

and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

17.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2025, whereinafter,

investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on

06.09.2025. Out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been

examined till date. Indubitably, culmination of the trial will take its own

time. The rival contentions raised at Bar given 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.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 17.11.2025 filed by learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 04 months and 04 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the

petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum

cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular

bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant

of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the

3 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-63735- 63735-2025

facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a

Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of

Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this

Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of

Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is

not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.

7. 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 CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport(s), if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number(s) to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number(s) without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.