Khushhal Singh vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 3969 P&H

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

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

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

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

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