Kuldeep @ Koti vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), being the first petition, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.60 dated 20.02.2026, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 351(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Sections 307, 34, 506 and 120-B IPC) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 29 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kaithal City, District Kaithal.

As per the prosecution, on 19.02.2026 at about 9:30 p.m., complainant Amit had gone with Rahul to a liquor and wine shop at Jakholi Stand, Kaithal, in an i-20 car bearing registration No. HR10AH-1212. While Rahul went inside the shop, the complainant remained seated in the vehicle. At that time, co-accused Sandeep @ Matour allegedly arrived and fired two shots at the complainant with a country-made pistol, one of which missed while the other hit the driver-side seat. It is further alleged that a boy accompanying Sandeep asked the complainant to come out of the vehicle, whereafter the complainant fled from the rear door. While he was running towards Anaaj Mandi, he was allegedly chased by Sandeep, Ankit Saharan and two unidentified persons, who fired shots at him. When the complainant reached the gate of Anaaj Mandi and hid behind a pillar, Sandeep allegedly fired six shots at him from a distance of about 25 feet, one of which struck the complainant on his right arm. The assailants thereafter allegedly fled from the spot after extending threats to kill him. The complainant was taken to Government Hospital, Kaithal, where his medico-legal examination was conducted. Upon being declared fit to make a statement, his statement was recorded on 20.02.2026, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. During investigation, the present petitioner Kuldeep @ Koti was allegedly implicated. As per the prosecution, his role is that he was driving the Swift car in which the assailants had allegedly come to the spot. The prosecution further relies upon the material collected during investigation in this regard. The investigation qua the petitioner has been completed and the final report under Section 193 BNSS has been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2026 and is presently in judicial custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and was neither named in the FIR nor assigned any specific overt role in the alleged firing incident. It is submitted that the complainant has attributed the entire firing and the injury caused to him to co-accused Sandeep, whereas there is no allegation that the petitioner fired any shot or caused any injury to the complainant.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated subsequently on the basis of a disclosure statement, which by itself cannot constitute substantive evidence against him. The allegation regarding the petitioner being the driver of the Swift car is also not supported by any independent material such as CCTV footage, call detail records, location data or eyewitness identification. No weapon or other incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the investigation stands completed and the final report has already been filed, while the petitioner has been in custody since 20.02.2026. The charges are yet to be framed and the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused Pardeep @ Matha and Raman @ Kalsi have already been granted bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 15.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 06 months and 23 days.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as petitioner was allegedly involved in the occurrence and had facilitated the commission of the offence by driving the vehicle used by the assailants. It is further submitted that the complainant sustained a firearm injury during the occurrence and the matter involves offences punishable under the provisions of the BNS as well as the Arms Act.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific allegation of having fired upon or caused injury to the complainant has been attributed to him. His implication subsequently surfaced during investigation. The allegation regarding his involvement is primarily sought to be connected with the vehicle allegedly used in the occurrence. However, the said vehicle was registered in the name of Mandeep son of Satbir, who himself produced the vehicle before the police and got the same recovered. No weapon or other incriminating material is stated to have been recovered from the petitioner. The investigation stands completed and the police report has already been presented before the competent Court. The petitioner has remained in custody since 20.02.2026. The material relied upon by the prosecution, including the statements recorded during investigation, would be a matter for appreciation at the stage of trial. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the continued incarceration of the petitioner, particularly when no further custodial interrogation or recovery is shown to be required, cannot be justified merely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations. The fact that co-accused Pardeep @ Matha and Raman @ Kalsi have already been granted bail is also a circumstance which may be taken into consideration, subject to the distinction in their respective roles. The petitioner can be adequately secured by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure his presence during trial and to prevent any misuse of the concession of bail.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.