Pankaj Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 30.01.2024, under Sections 25, 29 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula.

¶15

Allegations are that petitioner sold country made pistol 0.315 bore to co-accused, namely, Keshav.

¶16

Contends that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court on 21.02.2025 and in pursuance thereof, he has already joined investigation; hence, his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶17

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.06 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-1-

¶19

CRM-M- 10102-2025(O&M)

¶20

The above factual position is not disputed by learned State Counsel and submits that his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶22

paper-book.

¶23

It transpires that petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court on 21.02.2025 and the order reads as under:-

¶24

“Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 30.01.2024, under Sections 25, 29 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula.

¶25

Notice of motion.

¶26

Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State; seeks time to have instructions and/or to file written response in the matter.

¶27

Posted for 09.04.2025.

¶28

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer, but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing.”

¶29

It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has joined investigation and as on today, his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶30

In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, present

¶31

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.06 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

-2-

¶33

CRM-M- 10102-2025(O&M)

¶34

petition is allowed; interim order dated 21.02.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) BNSS.

¶35

It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.

¶36

The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter.

¶37

It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

¶38

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶39

05.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Harish Kumar JUDGE

¶40

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶41

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.06 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

-3-

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmeet Kamboj Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Khanna @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Pal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harbhajan Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manoj Vs State of Haryana