Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 111 indian penal code in Ram Dinesh vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026Matching Fragments
All the aforesaid ten petitions, seeking the concession of regular bail by the respective petitioners, are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the two FIRs registered in reference to the same occurrence and involve interconnected facts and issues. 2 The details of the cases and the respective FIRs wherein they have been filed are tabulated as under: -
Sr. No. FIR No.22 dated 21.01.2024, FIR No.23 dated under Section(s) 285, 307, 384, 21.01.2024, under 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Section(s) 307 and 34 Code, 1860, (Sections 120-B, 109, of the Indian Penal 111, 386, 387, 412 and 507 of the Code, 1860, (Sections IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the 120-B, 109 and 111 of 4 of 14 CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -5-
M- GURU V/S 21.01.2024, under
54192- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307,
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code,
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387,
412 and 507 of the
IPC and Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 added later
on), registered at
Police Station Gohana
City, District Sonepat.
4 CRM- RAHUL FIR No.22 dated • Owner/driver of
M- TOMAR V/S 21.01.2024, under the Scorpio
54511- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307, vehicle used for
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the transporting
Indian Penal Code, weapons.
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387, • Accompanied
412 and 507 of the co-accused
IPC and Sections 25 Harvinder and
and 27 of the Arms Raman to
Act, 1959 added later deliver weapons
on), registered at to Rohit.
Police Station Gohana • Assisted in
City, District Sonepat. transferring extortion money.
9 of 14
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -10-
and other connected matters.
CRM- RAHUL FIR No.23 dated
M- TOMAR V/S 21.01.2024, under
54196- STATE OF Section(s) 307 and 34
2025 HARYANA of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, (Sections
120-B, 109 and 111 of
the IPC and Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 added later
on), registered at
Police Station Gohana
City, District Sonepat.
5 CRM- YASH ALIAS FIR No.22 dated • Associated with
M- PANDU V/S 21.01.2024, under co-accused
56063- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307, through
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the Lakshay (cousin
Indian Penal Code, of Sahil).
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387, • Roommate of
412 and 507 of the accused Rahul
IPC and Sections 25 during college.
and 27 of the Arms • Engaged in
Act, 1959 added later communication
on), registered at with other
City, District Sonepat.
7 Counsel for the petitioners contend that in the aforesaid incident
10 of 14
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -11-
and other connected matters.
of firing at the shop of complainant Neeraj Gupta resulting in FIR No.22, one Bijender had also suffered injuries for which a separate FIR No.23 dated 21.01.2024 under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC (Section 120-B, 109 and 111 of IPC and Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, added later on) was also registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat. 8 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submit that the petitioners have been in custody since April/May 2024 and have undergone an actual custody of nearly 02 years. It is further contended that the trial has made negligible progress. In FIR No. 22 dated 21.01.2024, out of a total of 84 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far, whereas in FIR No. 23 dated 21.01.2024, out of 45 witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel further submit that none of the petitioners, except Rukumuddin, are involved in any other criminal case apart from the instant two FIRs. Insofar as petitioner Rukumuddin is concerned, it is stated that he had been nominated as an accused in FIR No. 266 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gohana, however, he has already been acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 17.12.2022. 9 It is contended that the petitioner(s) herein are alleged to be the co-conspirators in the incident of firing at the shop of Neeraj Gupta (complainant in FIR No.22) wherein the victim Bijender was incidentally caught in the cross-fire as he attempted to enter into the shop. The petitioner herein never actually participated in the act of firing at the spot. It is further contended that at the time of the incident, the petitioners were of young age. Petitioner Yash @ Pendu was about 18 years, petitioner Rahul about 19 years, petitioner Ankit @ Guru about 20 years, petitioner Deepak about 23 years and 11 of 14 CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -12- and other connected matters.