Vikas @ Vikash 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 Cr.P.C., 1973), being the second petition, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 221 dated 10.04.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 308(4), 351(3), 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 215, 238(a), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, during the pendency of the trial.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.2025 at about 1:25 PM, the complainant Pankush Kakkar was present at his Visa Consultancy Centre, namely PR Global, situated on Ladwa Road, Shahabad, along with his staff. At that time, two unknown young boys, armed with firearms, entered the said centre and started firing. While some shots were fired in the air, one of the shots struck Bhushan, who was present near the reception, in his abdomen, as a result of which he fell down. It is further alleged that thereafter, the complainant received a WhatsApp call on his mobile phone from an unknown number. The caller allegedly identified himself as Noni Rana and demanded an amount of ₹1 crore, while threatening the complainant with death and further threatening to throw a grenade at his house. It was also allegedly stated that the bullet was intended for one Dandigar but had instead struck the person standing near the reception. On the basis of the complainant's statement, present FIR was registered. During investigation, the present petitioner, namely Vikas, along with other co-accused, was nominated. The allegations against the petitioner, as emerging from the investigation, are that he, along with co-accused, had conducted reconnaissance/recce of the place of occurrence. The challan was thereafter presented on 15.07.2025 and charges were framed on 06.03.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to him. The allegations against the petitioner are confined to the alleged recce of the place of occurrence, without any allegation that he participated in the firing, demanded any money, or extended any threat to the complainant.

It is further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner and the prosecution has not attributed any specific role to him in the commission of the alleged offences. The material witness, namely the complainant, has already been examined on 09.04.2026 and has not supported the prosecution case on material particulars, including the alleged demand of ₹1 crore and threats. Thus, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the complainant or tampering with his testimony stands substantially reduced.

Learned counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented and charges were framed on 06.03.2026. The petitioner has remained in custody since 24.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused Diksha, Dalsher and Rahul Verma have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by way of CRM-M-33498-2026, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2026. Learned counsel submits that the present petition is being filed on account of the change in circumstances. It is fairly conceded that the petitioner is involved in two other cases, but he is already on bail therein. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by the Court and not to misuse the concession of 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 01 year 04 months and 21 days.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations are serious in nature, involving indiscriminate firing at the complainant's establishment, causing a firearm injury to Bhushan, followed by an alleged demand of ₹1 crore and threats to the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the recce of the place of occurrence and is also involved in two other criminal cases.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody since 24.04.2025. The challan has already been presented and charges were framed on 06.03.2026. More importantly, the complainant, who is the material witness to the occurrence and the alleged demand of ₹1 crore, has already been examined on 09.04.2026. As per the material placed on record, the complainant has not supported the prosecution version on material particulars, including the alleged extortion demand and threats. The evidentiary value and ultimate effect of his testimony would, of course, be assessed by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. As regards the present petitioner, the allegations attributed to him are confined to having allegedly conducted recce of the place of occurrence. No specific allegation of firing, causing injury to Bhushan, making the alleged demand of ₹1 crore or extending threats to the complainant is attributed to him. Further, no incriminating recovery from the petitioner has been pointed out. The prosecution evidence has to be appreciated during trial and, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the case. The fact that co-accused Diksha, Dalsher and Rahul Verma have already been granted bail is also a circumstance to be considered, though the principle of parity would depend upon the specific role attributed to each accused. The petitioner is admittedly involved in two other cases; however, in both those cases, he is stated to be on bail. The said antecedents can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.

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.