[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hemant Rana Alias Shubham vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-6398-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
276 CRM-M-6398-2026
Date of decision: 29th April, 2026
Hemant Rana @ Shubham
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Molly Tarunima Tagore, Advocate for the petitioner.
(through VC)
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 Sections 111(2) and 238(c) 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 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, i.e. the present petitioner, 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, in view of disclosure statement of
the co-accused Sohard @ Munna, the petitioner was nominated. He was also
lodged in custody in some other case. His presence was secured by issuance
of production warrants. He was formally arrested in this case on 04.10.2025.
He too suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had joined
Bhambhiya gang and was assigned the work of doing recee of the given target.
He also disclosed that on asking of accused Manjot Singh, he had done recee
of the liquor vend where the occurrence had taken place and had shown all
the passages of escape to accused Sohard @ Munna and then accused Sohard
@ Munna and Rohit @ Kartoos had caused firing at the place of occurrence.
Investigation now stands completed.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-
accused and disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him which cannot be
considered to admissible in evidence. He was not named by the co-accused
Sohard @ Munna in his first disclosure statement. Co-accused Bhupender
Singh has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. No material has been
collected by investigating agency to show his involvement in the crime. He is
in custody since ling. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No
useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. He has
been extended benefit of bail in other cases in which he is involved. With these
broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by
respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view
the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and his criminal
antecedents, he does not deserve to be released on bail. 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 formed a gang with the co-
accused and being member of that gang, he is alleged to have done recee for
the purpose of facilitating the co-accused to commit offence of firing with
arms at the liquor vend wherein the complainant was working with intent to
overawe and to extort money. 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 04.10.2025. 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
