Abhishek Alias Shekhar Vs State of Haryana

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

¶18

hereunder:-

¶19

Name of Petitioner(s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Abhishek @ Shekhar, aged about 20 years	166	14.09.2025	109(1), 3(5), 308(5), 61(2), 351(3), 111(2),111(4), 111(5), 238(B) of BNS, 2023 & 25(6) and (7) of Arms Act, 1959	Sadhaura	Yamuna Nagar

¶20

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶22

2

¶23

Case of the prosecution, as discussed in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 in the order dated 16.01.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-3), is reproduced here below, for

¶24

reference:-

¶25

“ FIR Version:

¶26

As per prosecution, on 13.09.2025 at about 10:00 PM, on receipt of telephonic information regarding firing gun shots by unknown boys, who were wearing helmet, at the house of Janak Raj son of Krishan Lal, SI/SHO Ajay Kumar, ASI Pawan Kumar, C. Naveen in Government vehicle driven by HKRN Kamal reached at the spot and verified the facts. Scene of Crime Team was also called at the spot. Complainant Janak Raj submitted a written complaint, wherein it was averred that he is a tailor and has three children i.e. one boy namely Neeraj Kumar, aged 27 years and two daughters. His elder daughter is married and his other two children i.e. one son and one daughter are unmarried. From the last six months, his son Neeraj Kumar alongwith other boys was doing the work of sending the boys abroad and he used to do heavy money transactions. Thereafter, from the last three months, his son Neeraj Kumar was doing private work at Delhi. On 13.09.2025, his son Neeraj Kumar disclosed him (complainant Janak Raj) that on 12.09.2025 at about 4:00 PM, he had received a whatsapp call on his mobile No. 9896961675 from mobile No. +3512913289914, but he did not pick said call. On 24.08.2025 at about 9:32 PM also, he had received mobile call from aforesaid mobile number, which was also not picked up by him and then at about 9:34 PM, a voice message was received on the mobile of his son Neeraj Kumar to the effect that as to whether he (son of complainant) intended to suffer loss and if so, they would enter his house within 24 or 48 hours and kill them. On 27.08.2025, at about 4:17 AM, his son Neeraj Kumar received message that now he would call him after making/causing him loss. All these averments were disclosed by his son to the complainant on 13.09.2025 at about 10:00 PM. His son also disclosed that he had been receiving the message from the mobile in the name of one Venket Garg, resident of Naraingarh and he was demanding extortion money of Rs.30 Lakh from him and he ( Neeraj son of the complainant) is not picking his

¶27

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶28

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶29

3

¶30

(Venket Garg) mobile call. On 13.09.2025 at about 10:00 PM, while complainant alongwith his family members was at his house and they were sitting in their separate rooms, then at about 10:00 PM, he heard noise of firing shots and noise of breaking of upper glass of the door of their house. Complainant came out and saw that two unknown young men had come on a motor cycle make 'Splendor' without number. Both of them were having weapons in their hands and with intent to kill them, they had fired shots. Both the said boys were wearing helmets and they fled away from the spot alongwith their weapons. The pillion rider of the motor cycle was wearing a white coloured shirt. Complainant came out and saw that two rounds had hit HPL Sheet of grill, two rounds were on the doors having Jali, one round on the roof of first floor towards outside and one round on the grill. Also submitted that they had fired upon their house with intention to kill them due to non giving of extortion money by them. Thus, he prayed for taking legal action against the culprits.

¶31

Investigation:

¶32

On the basis of above complaint, FIR in the present case was registered. During investigation, Scene of Crime Team was called at the spot and eight empty cells of bullet and four metalled broken pieces of fired gun shots were recovered from the spot, which were taken into police possession. On 14.09.2025, accused Sahil was apprehended. On conducting his search, a country made pistol loaded with four cartridges was recovered from him and one empty cartridge was also there in the pistol. On further search of accused, two cartridges covered in a threatening letter were recovered from the right pocket of his pant. He also disclosed that he had made firing from the said pistol, on the asking of Gangster Venket Garg. During interrogation, disclosure statement of accused Sahil was recorded. Sections 111(2), 61(2) of BNS and 25(6) and (7) of Arms Act were added. On 24.09.2025, accused Sahil Kumar got recovered motor cycle No. HR03GV-1471 used by them for rekki, before the incident and also got demarcated the place of occurrence. Section 238(B) of BNS, was added as number plate of motor cycle was changed by the accused persons to hide the identity of the same. CCTV footage of place of occurrence was also taken by police. On 06.10.2025, accused Aditya Thapar was arrested in the present case. During interrogation, his

¶33

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶34

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶35

4

¶36

disclosure statement was recorded. On 07.10.2025, Nikhil and accused Tarun Sharma were arrested in the present case. During interrogation, their disclosure statements were recorded. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 07.10.2025, accused Abhishek @ Shekhar (petitioner-accused) was arrested. On 08.10.2025, accused Naseeb @ Monu and Sumit Kumar @ Talla (petitioner-accused) were arrested. During interrogation, their disclosure statements were recorded. On 09.10.2025, accused Bhanwar Singh was arrested and during interrogation, his disclosure statement was recorded on 10.10.2025. On 10.10.2025, Vaibhav @ Vannu was arrested and during interrogation, his disclosure statement was recorded, pursuant to which he got recovered Rs.1500/- and mobile make 'Redmi'. On 16.10.2025, accused Abhay was arrested in the present case. On 17.10.2025, accused Shubham and Deepak were arrested in the present case. During interrogation, their disclosure statements were recorded, pursuant to which they got demarcated the place of occurrence.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

¶38

been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion that one Venket Garg is a gangster and several other accused are members of his alleged gang. It is contended that, although the allegations in the FIR pertain only to two assailants, who allegedly fired gunshots outside the complainant's house at about 10:00 P.M. on 13.09.2025, but number of other persons, including the petitioner, have been unnecessarily arrayed as accused in the present case.

¶39

Learned counsel further submits that, as per the version recorded in the FIR, only two unknown young men, riding a motorcycle and wearing helmets, were seen at the spot. Neither complainant nor any of his family members was able to identify either of the assailants.

¶40

It is further argued that, as per the prosecution, accused Sahil was initially arrested. However, prosecution has failed to explain the

¶41

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶42

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶43

5

¶44

basis, on which Sahil came to be implicated. Prosecution's version is that after firing the shots, assailants attempted to flee, during which one of them fell down and was apprehended at the spot.

¶45

Refuting the said version, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid story is a subsequent concoction and an afterthought. It is contended that, had such an incident actually taken place, the same would have found mention in the FIR itself. It is, therefore, argued that there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged occurrence or with the principal accused, who allegedly fired the shots. Rather, petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2025, solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Sahil. The evidentiary value and authenticity of such a disclosure statement are seriously disputed, as the same is, by itself, inadmissible in evidence, except to the limited extent permissible under law.

¶46

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is a 20-yearold college student pursuing Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree, and has no previous criminal antecedents. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶47

In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶49

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶50

6

¶51

As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 09 months and 13 days period inside jail and there is no other case registered against him.

¶52

Learned State counsel is unable to dispute any of the factual assertion as stated by counsel for the petitioner today before this Court, including the total incarceration period undergone by him. However, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

¶53

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file. 10. Prosecution's case is that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred by the petitioner, through a QR scanner/payment application, to the account of Dalsher (since deceased), father of co-accused Sahil, allegedly at the instance of accused Venket Garg.

¶54

However, at this stage, this allegation, by itself, is not sufficient to prima facie conclude that the said amount was transferred by the petitioner for the purpose alleged by the prosecution. It is not the prosecution's case that petitioner has ever been involved in any other criminal activity in the past.

¶55

Petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 07.10.2025, i.e. for a period of approximately nine months and thirteen days. Further, out of total 32 prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been examined, so far. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

¶56

In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, period of incarceration already undergone, absence of any criminal antecedents,

¶57

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶58

CRM-M-7892-2026

¶59

7

¶60

and delay in conclusion of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶61

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶62

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶63

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.

¶64

Petition stands disposed of.

¶65

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶66

21.07.2026 Lavisha

¶67

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶68

LAVISHA 2026.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Abhishek Alias Shekhar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Alias Shekhar 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

Geeta Devi Rohal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kamal Alias Khatul Alias Kamal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Amanjeet Singh @ Guri Vs State of Punjab

Navreet Singh Alias Navneet Singh Vs State of Haryana

St of Pb Vs Hargobind Khosla

Sukhvir Singh @Goldy Vs State of Punjab