High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 0202

Jahid Hussain vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-48649-2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 369 words

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.159 dated 15.10.2025 under Section 221, 121(1), 132, 109(1), 111(3), 3(5) and 317 (2) of BNS-2023 ( corresponding to Sections 186, 332, 353 and 307 of IPC), Section 111(3) of BNS added later on and Sections 34 and 411 IPC 1860 and Sections 25 (1C, 28 (6) of (Act No.54) of Arms Act 1959 registered at Police Station Bichhor, District Nuh.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the entire prosecution version is concocted by the police. In fact, the police had caused injuries to the petitioner and his companions. Further, neither the petitioner had caused any injury to anyone nor he was having any weapon. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 15th October 2025 and is in custody since then. Even, after completion of investigation, the challan has already been presented against him. Moreover, Tarif alias Aarif has been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide order dated 05.01.2026, Annexure P-1.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

In the present case, admittedly, the police officials had not suffered any injuries and they are yet to lead evidence before the trial Court to prove that the petitioner had fired at them. Moreover, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 10 months and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.

6.

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.