CRM-M-27486-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M-27486-2026 Date of Decision:15.07.2026 PARKASH RANJAN ALIAS SUNNY ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.406 dated 22.12.2024 under Sections 61(2), 111(3), 308(4) and 351(3) of BNS (corresponding to Section 120 (B), 387 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a Commission Agent by profession and he received a threat call on his mobile phone from the petitioners who claimed themselves to be the gangsters of the Lawrence gang and demanded Rs.1 crore from him. When the negotiations were going on to settle the amount, the instant FIR was registered. It is further stated that on the basis of CDR, one Harmeet Singh was arrested and he disclosed the name of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was apprehended in the present case. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27486-2026 2

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused and the same is inadmissible in evidence He further submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. He further submit that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2025 therefore prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 25 days and is not involved in any other case. 6. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that the complainant has no objection, if the petitioner is released on regular bail. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27486-2026 3 parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 25 days; is not involved in any other case; co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail; that the matter already stands compromised between the parties and counsel for the complainant has also made his no objection for granting bail to the petitioner coupled with the fact that the trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-27486-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M-27486-2026 Date of Decision:15.07.2026 PARKASH RANJAN ALIAS SUNNY ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.406 dated 22.12.2024 under Sections 61(2), 111(3), 308(4) and 351(3) of BNS (corresponding to Section 120 (B), 387 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a Commission Agent by profession and he received a threat call on his mobile phone from the petitioners who claimed themselves to be the gangsters of the Lawrence gang and demanded Rs.1 crore from him. When the negotiations were going on to settle the amount, the instant FIR was registered. It is further stated that on the basis of CDR, one Harmeet Singh was arrested and he disclosed the name of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was apprehended in the present case. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27486-2026 2

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused and the same is inadmissible in evidence He further submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. He further submit that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2025 therefore prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 25 days and is not involved in any other case. 6. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that the complainant has no objection, if the petitioner is released on regular bail. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27486-2026 3 parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 25 days; is not involved in any other case; co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail; that the matter already stands compromised between the parties and counsel for the complainant has also made his no objection for granting bail to the petitioner coupled with the fact that the trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.16 11.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh