Dismissed¶34

Arvind v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2025CRM-M/40353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Without commenting on the merits of the case, at this stage when the complainant and related witnesses have not been examined, no case for grant of bail is made out. ¶34

Arvind Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Arvind, an accused in FIR No. 526 dated 25.06.2024 registered at Police Station Camp Palwal under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 341, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, is entitled to grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶14

Court's answer

Without commenting on the merits of the case, at this stage when the complainant and related witnesses have not been examined, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS sought by petitioner Arvind, accused in FIR No. 526 dated 25.06.2024, P.S. Camp Palwal (Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 341, 506, 120-B IPC; Section 25 Arms Act), arising from the 25.06.2024 gun attack near Raharana Road/KMP expressway, Palwal, in which Raj Kumar was killed and complainant Rohit suffered gunshot injuries, the chest injury being 'dangerous to life' and another 'grievous'. Investigation: petitioner arrested 24.07.2024 with recovery of Alto car; co-accused Karmbir arrested; challan against petitioner and Brijesh filed; per status report of DySP Manoj Verma, five persons named in the complaint (Karmbir, Jayant, Sanju, Deva, Laxman) kept in column No.2 after polygraph tests and CDR checking. Petitioner's bail application had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawal on 3.5.2025. Counsel for petitioner urged tainted and partisan investigation, non-conduct of petitioner's polygraph test despite repeated requests, only minor injuries to Rohit, no weapon recovery at petitioner's instance, custody since 24.7.2024 and none of 27 prosecution witnesses examined; State and complainant's counsel opposed, citing the manner of offence, the 'dangerous to life' injury, the complainant not yet examined, a pending application to array other persons as accused, and apprehension of overawing witnesses and absconding. Held (Aaradhna Sawhney, J., oral): without commenting on the merits, at this stage when the complainant and related witnesses have not been examined, no case for grant of bail is made out; petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

CRM-M-40353-2025 -1-

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

268 CRM-M-40353-2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

Arvind

…Petitioner.

Ve r sus

State of H aryana

…Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

¶10

Present: Mr. Raj Avtar Singh, Advoc a te for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vishal Singh, Assistant A dvocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior A d vocate with Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate f o r the complainant.

¶12

¶13

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 526 dated 25.06.2 0 24, under Se c tions 148, 149, 323, 302, 307 , 341, 506, 120-B of Indian P e nal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, regist e red at Police Station Camp Pal w al, has filed t he present petition for grant of b ail under Section 483 of BNSS. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶15

On 25.6.2024, after rec e iving a telephonic informa t ion regardin g admission of one Raj Kumar, son of Karmbir and Rohit, so n of Jagbir in General Hospital, Pawal, bot h of whom have suffered gun s hot injuries n ear Raharana Road close to a Warehouse, SI Dharampal hea d ed

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-40353-2025 -2-

¶18

for the h o spital. It was also intimated t o the police official that one o f the injured, n amely, Raj Kumar had succu m bed to his injuries due to gun s hot wounds, a s also that the dead body is lying in the mortuary of Accord Hospital, Faridabad. After reaching th e hospital, SI Dharampal obtai n ed MLRs, w h en it was intimated that injure d Rohit had been referred to S up er Specialty Hospital. Immediately there af ter, SI Dharampal and the o t her team me m bers reached Sarvodaya Hosp i tal, Faridabad and after obtai n ing permissi o n from the Doctor on duty, questioned Rohit, who submitte d a typed co m plaint mentioning therein that h e is an agriculturist by profess i on. Raj Kum a r (since deceased) son of Kar m bir is his cousin brother. A b out two year s ago, accused Brijesh had take n Rs.10 lakhs from them. They w ere requestin g Brijesh, his father and brothe r s to return the money, none of t h em were pay i ng any attention. While menti o ning the incident that occurre d on 8.11.202 3 , complainant pointed out that on the said day, he along with his cousin br o ther Raj Kumar (since deceas e d), and Prem Parkash had gon e to the mark e t to purchase some household a rticles, when suddenly Brijesh a nd Karmbir a rrived at the site in their vehi c le and broke the window pane s of the car a nd also injured them. Thou g h the complaint was filed but on account o f intervention made by respec ta ble of the locality, a compro m ise was arri v ed at. Complainant alleges tha t Brijesh, Deva, Vikram Master e tc. were con t inuing to hold a grudge again s t him (c) and his family mem b ers and also t hreatened to kill them in case t h ey demanded the money. Furt h er, as per th e complainant, at about 3.30 A M on 25.6.2024, he and his co u sin brother R aj Kumar left their home in a Grand Vitara bearing registra t ion No. HR- 5 1-CH-5498 to go to temple. At about 4 AM, when they w ere crossing K MP expressway, three vehicle s started following them in Alto C ar

¶19

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-40353-2025 -3-

¶21

No. HR- 5 0H-4205 being driven by Ar v ind and Brijesh and Shakti w ere sitting, in Santro Car No. DL-8AN-8650 w ere Jayant, Shastri, Deva, Vik r am and Vikr a m’s son Pawan (Sanju was driving) and Scorpio vehicle No. H R30AB-45 4 2, Karmbir was driving. On se e ing the vehicles surrounding th e m, he (c) tri e d to change his route when su d denly Sanju blocked their way, coaccused P awan fired with a countryma d e pistol. Arvind (P), Brijesh a nd Shakti al s o alighted from their car. De v a handed over revolver to Ar v ind (petitioner), who fired shot at him. This b ullet hit his right hand and fing e rs. Three m o re shots were fired, one of whi c h hit in his stomach, one hit r i ght knee an d the other went passed throu g h abdomen. Brijesh as has been pointed b y complainant, fired at Raj Kumar. The shots hit Raj Kumar on the right sid e of ribs. Both, he and his cous i n fell down. Thereafter, assail a nts departed. Family members were inti m ated, who rushed injured to the hospital. Unfortunately, Raj Kumar succumbed to his injuries wherea s he (c) was g o t admitted in Sarvodaya Hospi t al, Faridabad.

¶22

On the basis of said compl a int and MLRs, a formal case v ide FIR No. 5 26 dated 25.06.2024, was reg i stered against him, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 341, 506, 120- B of Indian Penal Code and Sec t ion 25 of Ar m s Act, at Police Station Camp P alwal. Investigations were set i nto motion, d uring which bullet shell and b l ood stained items were taken i nto possessio n . During further course of investigation, on 24.7.2024, petitioner Arvind w as arrested and got recovere d Alto car which was taken i nto possessio n . During interrogation, Arvin d confessed that he and co-acc u sed Brijesh i l legally used to facilitate the m ovement of trucks and dum p ers through R TA Palal checkpoints by provi d ing information to the transpor t ers so as to e nable them to pass their over l oaded trucks at the time when the

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-40353-2025 -4-

¶25

officials o f RTA were not present. Co -accused Karmbir was arres t ed. Investiga t ing Officer also obtained the op inion of the treating Doctor w ith regard t o the injuries suffered by Rohit. Out of four injuries, suffere d by him, inju r y No.3 suffered on the chest w a s declared as ‘Dangerous to l if e’, injury N o .2 on the right hand was decla r ed as ‘Grievous in nature’. A f ter completi o n of investigation qua petition e r and Brijesh, challan complet e in all respe c ts was filed in the trial Court.

¶26

It further emerges from t h e status report given by wa y of affidavit o f Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pal w al, that afte r the investigation of the cas e was handed over to CIA S t aff, polygrap h tests of other persons so named in the complaint were got conducte d . That apart on checking thei r call detail records, none of t h em were fou n d near the scene of crime. R esultantly, five of them, namely, Karmbir, Jayant, Sanju, Deva and Laxm a n were kept in column No.2.

¶27

Application filed by petitio n er for grant of bail was dismi s sed by the le a rned Additional Sessions Judg e , Pawal, vide order dated 3.5.2 0 25. Aggrieve d of which, present petition has b een filed. 3. Learned counsel for the pet i tioner submits that petitioner, w ho is an in n ocent farmer, has been falsel y implicated in the present c a se. Investiga t ions have been conducted in a tainted and partisan manner. F ive persons, who were specifically name d in the FIR were subjected to polygrap h tests. Based upon the repo r ts of the tests, they were let o ff. Surprisin g ly enough, petitioner was not subjected to polygraph test by the Investiga t ing Officer to whom repeate d requests were also made in t his regard. T he next leg of submission rais e d by learned counsel is that if the contents o f the complaint are carefully lo o ked into, the only role attribute d to

¶28

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-40353-2025 -5-

¶30

petitione r is that he fired shots at comp l ainant-injured Rohit, who suff e red only min o r injuries and as such allegati o ns of offences u/s 307 and 30 2 of Indian P e nal Code are not made out against him. The fact that no reco v ery of weapon was effected fat the instanc e of petitioner, further falsifies the stand of t he prosecution. Towards the e nd, learned counsel contends t hat petitione r who has been in custody since 24.7.2024, deserves a lenient v i ew to be tak e n in his favour, for out of 27 p r osecution witnesses, none has been examine d till date and thus, the completi o n of trial in the near future is q u ite remote. P rayer for allowing the petition w as made. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel accompanied by lear n ed counsel f o r the complainant vehemently o pposed the request for grant of b ail on the g round that the manner in w h ich the offence was commit t ed, disentitle s petitioner to the grant of bai l , moreso, when till date even the complain a nt has not been examined. It i s further the contention of lear n ed counsel t h at both, petitioner and Brijesh w ere illegally engaged in provi d ing informati o n to the transporters so as to e n able them to pass their overloa d ed trucks an d dumpers at a time when the o f ficials of RTA were not on pa t rol. That apa r t, present petitioner and Brijes h had participated in the inciden t of shooting in which one person, namel y , Raj Kumar had died whe r eas complain a nt also suffered gunshot injur i es, one of such injury suffered on the chest of the complainant, had been d e clared as ‘dangerous to life’ w h ile the other s have been declared as ‘grievo u s in nature’. Learned counsel for complain a nt contends that assuming f o r the sake of arguments that the investiga t ions have been faulty, the adva n tage of the same cannot be allo w ed to be av a iled by petitioner who fired g u nshots at the complainant. In a ny case, co m plainant party has already mov e d an application for arraying o t her

¶31

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-40353-2025 -6-

¶33

persons a s accused. Long custody in the factual scenario of the case, ca n not be a gro u nd itself for grant of bail. T owards the end, learned coun s els contend t h at if petitioner is extended the c oncession of bail, the likelihoo d of him over a wing complainant and related w itnesses (none of whom has been examine d ) as also fleeing from the pro c ess of justice by not appearin g in Court is q uite high. Dismissal of the petit i on has been made. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

¶34

documen t s on record. 6. In view of the submissions advanced by learned State cou n sel as well a s learned counsel for the compl a inant, but without commentin g on the merit s of the case, at this stage whe n complainant and related witne s ses have not b een examined, no case for gra n t of bail is made out. Accordin g ly, the petiti o n being devoid of any merit is h ereby dismissed.

¶35

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 14.11.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶36

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Arvind v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Transport Finance Compamny Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar

Chandan Singh Vs Anita

Bhagat Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Alias Kalu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh @ Binder Vs State of Haryana