Radha Krishan vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 2059 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Radha Krishan vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2026

CRM-M-60428-2025                             -1-


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                           AT CHANDIGARH
126
                                                              CRM-M-60428-2025
                                                              Decided on : 06.03.2026

RADHA KRISHAN                                                         . . . Petitioner(s)
                                            Versus
STATE OF HARYANA                                                    . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate and
         Mr. Sandeep Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

                Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
                                     ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. At the outset, learned State counsel has filed the status report

dated 25.02.2026 and custody certificate dated 05.03.2026 in Court today,

which are taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

Copies thereof have been been handed over to the counsel for the

petitioner.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,

2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,

during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising

out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name of Petitioner(s) FIR Date Section(s) Police District No. Station Radha Krishan 364 19.07.2025 305, 317(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), Rania Sirsa 340(2), 340 of BNS, 2023 and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act 54 of

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the

members of the police party were on patrolling duty and had reached near

1 of 4

the canal culvert adjoining Village Naiwala, secret information was received

that two persons, namely Devender Singh @ Heera and Radha Krishan @

Radhe (petitioner herein), who were in possession of illegal arms and were

presently travelling together in a Fortuner vehicle bearing fake number plate

No. HR26-EQ-4209, affixed for the purpose of concealing their identity,

could be apprehended if intercepted. Accordingly, investigation was

initiated and when the said Fortuner vehicle was intercepted by the police

patrolling party, both the accused were apprehended along with weapons.

Accused Devender Singh @ Heera got recovered one .32 bore

revolver along with six live cartridges, whereas the petitioner Radha Krishan

@ Radhe got recovered one .32 bore pistol along with two live cartridges.

Besides, both the accused were jointly found in possession of 10 live .315

bore cartridges and a currency amount of ₹3,82,000/-. Thus, both the

accused were arrested on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner

Radha Krishan @ Radhe is aged about 32 years and never, in the past, was

found involved in any other criminal activity; therefore, he has been falsely

implicated in the present case.

It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody for more than

07 months period, i.e., since the time of registration of the FIR, i.e.,

19.07.2025. The offence for which he has been charged by the learned trial

Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 is only under Section 25(1B)(a) of the

Arms Act, 1959. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment for a

maximum period of 05 years, whereas the petitioner has already remained in

custody for about 07 months and 16 days.

2 of 4

Additionally, learned counsel submits that although nothing is

mentioned in the status report, yet as per his instructions, the petitioner is

involved in one other case under the Excise Act.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes

the prayer for bail; however, he has failed to controvert the factual assertions

as discussed and noted here-above in the foregoing paragraphs.

6. Heard.

7. Though learned State counsel has filed a fresh status report,

nothing has been mentioned therein beyond the facts which have already

been specified in the petition and pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioner.

Further, a copy of the order dated 24.02.2026, vide which the

petitioner is charged, has been produced in Court and the same is taken on

record. Said order, specifically mentions about the charges framed against

petitioner, only for committing an offence punishable under Section

25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Neither any other allegation is levelled

against him nor he has been charge-sheeted with.

Besides, it is also noticed that the alleged offence is triable by

the Court of the learned Magistrate only, and conclusion of the trial is likely

to take a considerable period.

8. In view of the totality of circumstances and without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to

extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.

Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety

3 of 4

bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/

Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat

and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or

indirectly.

10. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not

be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,

trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on

the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in

accordance with law.

11. Petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 06, 2026 J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4