Deewansh Sharma Alias Chidi Vs State of Haryana

Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, (in CRM-M-10955-2025) Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate, with Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate and Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate, (in CRM-M-12883-2025)

¶18

Mr. Arjun Sheroan, Advocate and

¶19

Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate, (in CRM-M-18566-2025) for the petitioner(s).

¶20

Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *****

¶21

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

¶22

CRM-30661-2025 in CRM-M-10955-2025

¶23

The application for placing on record the testimonies of the

¶24

SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.07 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶25

CRM-M-10955-2025

¶26

prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 as Annexures P-7 to P-10 filed on behalf of the petitioner, is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The same are taken on record.

¶27

CRM-M-10955-2025 and connected matters

¶28

This order shall dispose of three criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. CRM-M-10955-2025 , CRM-M-12883-2025 and CRM-M18566-2025 as they arise out of the same FIR.

¶29

The petitioners, namely, Deewansh Sharma @ Chidi (in CRMM-10955-2025), Suraj (in CRM-M-12883-2025) and Mankeet Lohan (in CRM-M-18566-2025) seek the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case bearing FIR No.255 dated 23.10.2024 under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 308(4), 324(4), 351(2), 351(3), 61, 61(2), 238, 238(a), 111, 111(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 111(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from the petition bearing No. CRM-M-10955-2025.

¶31

The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Sahab Singh and reads as under:-

¶32

Statement of Sahab Singh son of Shri Gurnam Singh, Village Bodhi, Police Station Sadar Thanesar, Mob. 8053955546 stated that I am a resident of the above-mentioned address and I have opened a centre in the name of World Wide Immigration in the market of Sector 10, Kurukshetra and in this centre, I have a partner Amarjeet Malhotra. We have opened this centre in the

¶33

SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.07 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶34

CRM-M-10955-2025

¶35

year 2017. Today, I and my partner Amarjeet Malhotra and a boy Mandeep Singh son of Ram Kumar who works in the centre and other staff members were also present and at around 3.15 PM, a young boy stopped near the janitor in front of the centre and after looking around, started firing at our office with the intention to kill us. That boy fired about 6/7 rounds. Due to this firing, the toughened glass of the main gate of my office was shattered and the above mentioned boy Mandeep, who was sitting in the office got injured. After some time, threatening messages started coming on WhatsApp from mobile number 1(929)433-7972 on the phone number of my colleague Amarjeet Malhotra 9068446069 and voice messages also came. I will hand over a pen drive after transferring these messages into it and the boy who fired the shots ran away from behind and we came to know that a boy was already standing on a motorcycle and ran away with his friend. The above mentioned boy, whose name and address is not known, fired with the intention to kill and got injured Mandeep in my office and sent threatening messages. The victim Mandeep has gone to the hospital for treatment. After which I will submit the MLR. Legal action should be taken against them. Sd/- Sahab Singh

¶36

The learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the petitioners were arrested either on the basis of secret information or on the basis of disclosure statements of the arrested accused. There is no other admissible evidence available against them. Taking the prosecution version to be correct, it is Sandeep Pandit who is stated to have fired the shots whereas Ashu was driving the motorcycle. The complainant-Sahab Singh

¶37

SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.07 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶38

CRM-M-10955-2025

¶39

has been examined as PW-4 and has not supported the prosecution case. As the petitioners are in custody since 04.11.2024, 31.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 respectively but only 04 of the 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the instant cases is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

¶40

The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that all the accused in connivance with each other committed the offence in question. He, however, concedes that the assailants are Sandeep Pandit and Ashu, that the petitioners are in custody since 04.11.2024, 31.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 respectively and that only 04 of the 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioners and their co-accused shall be adjudicated during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 04.11.2024, 31.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 respectively but only 04 of the 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the instant cases is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required.

¶43

Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Deewansh Sharma @ Chidi (in CRM-M-10955-2025), Suraj (in CRM-M-12883-2025) and SUKHPREET KAUR2025.08.07 21:59 Mankeet Lohan (in CRM-M-18566-2025) are ordered to be released on bail I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶44

CRM-M-10955-2025

¶45

subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds each to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶46

The petitioners shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that they are not involved in any other crime/case(s) other than the present one.

¶47

In addition, the petitioners (or anyone on their behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioners from trial without sufficient cause.

¶48