Gajraj Vs State of Haryana

The present petition has bee n filed under Section 482 of t h e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking concession o f anticipator y bail in FIR No. 48 dated 20.04.2026 registered under Sectio n s 333, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (Section 109 of BNS, 2023 added later o n ) r (correspon d ing Sections 452, 506 of IPC) a nd (Section 307 IPC added lat e on) and 2 5 (1-B)(a) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bicchor, District Nu h (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the allegations, as contained in the FIR, are th a t the compl a inant alleged that on 19.04.2 0 26, while he was sitting in h i s house, the p etitioner Gajraj came there, ab u sed him and asked him to vaca t e the house. W hen the complainant objecte d , the petitioner allegedly threw a glass bottl e towards him and thereafter fi r ed a shot from a country-ma d e

¶16

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-33188-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶18

pistol with an intention to kill him. The shot allegedly missed the complainant. It is further alleged that upon hearing the noise of the gunshot, family members of the complainant reached the spot, whereupon the petitioner fled away after throwing the weapon at the place of occurrence. The police subsequently recovered the said weapon from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations levelled against him are incorrect. Learned counsel further submits that no injury was suffered by the complainant and the entire case rests upon an allegation of a single shot which admittedly did not hit the complainant. It is argued that the petitioner himself sustained injuries in the occurrence and was medically examined at PGI Rohtak, where he was found to have suffered fractures. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide order dated 02.05.2026 and, pursuant thereto, he joined the investigation. It is further argued that no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required.

¶20

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and has been attributed the act of firing a shot at the complainant with a country-made pistol. Learned State counsel further submits that although the petitioner joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by the learned Court below, he failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-33188-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶22

regarding the country-made pistol allegedly recovered from the spot as well as the used cartridge. It is argued that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation in its true spirit and that his custodial interrogation may still be required for effective investigation of the case. Prayer is thus made for dismissal of the present petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.

¶24

The record reveals that the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide order dated 02.05.2026 and, pursuant thereto, joined the investigation. The grievance of the investigating agency is not that the petitioner failed to join the investigation, but that he did not satisfactorily explain the circumstances relating to the country-made pistol allegedly recovered from the spot and the used cartridge.

¶25

The allegations levelled in the FIR are undoubtedly serious in nature and the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of firing a shot towards the complainant. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner has already joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Court below. Whether the explanation furnished by the petitioner is acceptable or otherwise is a matter which shall ultimately be examined during the course of investigation

¶26

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by granting the petitioner one final opportunity to cooperate with the investigation in its true letter and spirit.

¶27

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-33188-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days from today and shall fully cooperate with the investigating agency. He shall truthfully answer all queries put to him and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer

¶30

In the event the petitioner joins and cooperates with the investigation, he shall not be arrested in the present case. However, if he fails to join the investigation within the aforesaid period or is found not cooperating with the investigating agency, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to seek appropriate orders in accordance with law and the interim protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated without any further reference to this Court.

¶31

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed. 12. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

	(NEE	RJA K. KALSON) JUDGE
08.06.2026
Atul
1.	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
2.	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶33

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gajraj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajraj 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

Ehc Parmod Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ehc Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ehc Pawan Kumar No 505 Pwl Vs 1 State of Haryana

Jaskaran Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab through Secretary Department of Home Affairs Punjab

Diksha and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others