Tejinder Singh vs State of Haryana

First petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 52 dated 15.03.2026, registered at Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(6), 111(7), 3(5) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, besides Sections 61 and 351(2) BNS, subsequently incorporated in the challan, and Section 25(6) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 (corresponding to Sections 34, 387, 120-B and 506 IPC) (Annexure P-1).

Briefly stated, the prosecution case emanates from secret information received by SI Daljeet Singh on 15.03.2026, while he, along with the police party and investigation kit, was present beneath the Police Station Chhappar flyover on the Yamunanagar-Panchkula Highway. The secret informer disclosed that alleged gang members Rahul Kumar and Vinod, acting at the behest of gangsters Surya Pratap @ Noni Rana and Anil Kumar @ Monu Gurjar, were proceeding towards Yamunanagar in a white Hyundai i20 bearing registration No. HR-02AW-5612, along with two other associates, carrying illegal firearms with the alleged intention of committing the murder of the owner of a car sale-purchase business in Yamunanagar. The information further indicated that a shooter from Punjab was to join them and that the alleged gang was being operated in association with other members, some of whom were stated to be residing abroad or absconding in other criminal cases.

Treating the information as credible, the police party proceeded towards Chhappar Bus Stand and established a barricade on the Dosarka-Yamunanagar road. An independent person, namely Gaurav son of Sanjeev Kumar, resident of village Chhappar, was also associated with the police proceedings. Shortly thereafter, the aforesaid white i20 car bearing registration No. HR-02AW-5612 was intercepted. Four persons travelling therein were apprehended and identified as Rahul Kumar, Vinod, Vishal Saini and Shubham.

During the ensuing searches, the prosecution alleges recovery of an illegal pistol along with seven live cartridges from Vinod, another pistol along with five live cartridges from Vishal Saini, and a magazine containing seven live cartridges from Shubham. From Rahul Kumar, the RC of the vehicle, a mobile phone and cash amounting to ₹5,000/- were allegedly recovered. From Vinod, apart from the firearm and ammunition, a mobile phone and ₹2,000/- in cash were recovered; from Vishal Saini, a mobile phone and ₹3,000/- in cash were allegedly recovered; and from Shubham, a mobile phone and ₹2,000/- in cash were allegedly recovered.

The prosecution further claims that the recovered firearms and ammunition were duly measured, sketched, separately packaged and sealed with the official seal DS/1, with a specimen seal DS/2 prepared separately. The recovered articles, the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-02AW-5612 and its registration certificate were taken into police possession vide seizure memo. The entire proceedings up to that stage were allegedly videographed through the e-Saakshya App. The independent witness was thereafter discharged after being suitably instructed.

Consequently, present FIR came to be registered at Police Station Chhappar, District Yamunanagar, under the aforesaid provisions. Copies of the FIR were prepared and forwarded to the competent senior police officers, while the original written report and relevant police papers were sent to the place of occurrence for further investigation. The FIR, thus, rests principally upon the secret information received by the police, the interception of the vehicle, the alleged recoveries of firearms and ammunition from three of the occupants, and the prosecution's assertion regarding their alleged association with an organised criminal gang.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated primarily on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot and his name surfaced subsequently during investigation, pursuant to which he was arrested on 18.03.2026. The alleged material against him comprises recovery of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-75E-6922, demarcation of a place from where ₹50,000/- was allegedly recovered at the instance of co-accused, and hotel records relating to his alleged stay at JIIO Hotel, Pipli, coupled with an online payment of ₹2,000/-. It is contended that none of these circumstances, individually or cumulatively, establishes his conscious or direct involvement in the alleged organised crime.

Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case against the petitioner substantially rests upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the evidentiary value whereof is circumscribed by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and which, in the absence of legally admissible corroborative material, cannot constitute substantive evidence of guilt. The invocation of Section 111 of the BNS is also disputed, as there is no material showing the petitioner’s involvement in any continuing unlawful activity or the requisite antecedents contemplated therein. Reliance has been placed upon Suraj Singh @ Noni v. State of Punjab, 2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 500.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity, as co-accused Mamta Rani @ Swati, who was similarly not named in the FIR and against whom no recovery was effected, has already been granted regular bail. The petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2026, investigation qua him stands concluded and challan has been presented; hence, no further custodial interrogation is warranted. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays for grant of regular bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. The custody certificate produced by learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious and that he is alleged to be associated with the Noni Rana and Monu Gujjar gang, which is stated to be involved in organised criminal activities. It is further contended that there is material in the form of an alleged threatening call and that ransom was demanded from abroad from Ashish Kumar @ Vicky and Hunny Chhabra (Satguru Motors). Learned State counsel submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged criminal antecedents and the apprehension that, if released on bail, the petitioner may indulge in similar activities, abscond from the process of law or attempt to influence or intimidate prosecution witnesses, no case for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and, with their able assistance, have minutely examined the paper-book, the material placed on record and the rival submissions advanced before this Court.

There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner of his being an active member of a criminal syndicate allegedly engaged in extortion, kidnapping and other unlawful activities, which is stated to be operated, inter alia, by persons residing abroad and closely associated with the petitioner. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that co-accused Sachin had been repeatedly transferring money to the petitioner and had even borne the expenses of the hotel where the petitioner stayed. It is further alleged that the petitioner was involved in collection of ransom amounts and, during investigation, he suffered a disclosure statement and demarcated the place from where the ransom amount was allegedly collected by him. There are also allegations of his supplying arms to other members of the syndicate for facilitating the commission of unlawful activities. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the attendant apprehension of the petitioner influencing or intimidating prosecution witnesses and obstructing the fair conduct of the trial, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the petition is hereby dismissed.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous, interlocutory and ancillary applications, if any, arising out of or connected with the present proceedings, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are warranted in respect thereof.