[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
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.
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
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
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
