Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

15.01.2023 Shahabad, District Kurukshetra 25(1B) of Arms Act (Section 25(6), 29 of Arms Act and 120-B IPC added later on)

¶1The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2Per Annexure R-4 attached with status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1.

14.11.2017 323, 325, 34 IPC City Thanesar

2.

21.11.2022 307, 120-B IPC City Thanesar

3.

09.02.2020 25-54-59 of Arms Act Butana

4.

16.04.2022 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 379-B, 120-B, 201 IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act Jagadhri

5.

05.02.2023 25-29-54-59 of Arms Act Krishana Gate

¶61006

16.10.2022 25/29-54-59 of Arms Act Shahabad

7.

01.06.2022 323, 307, 452, 506, 120-B IPC Sadar Thensar

8.

11.03.2018 285, 336 IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act K.U.K.

9.

14.01.2022 Arms Act Sadar Thanesar

¶10454/2022 - 307, 336, 120-B IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Zirakpur

¶111025

25.10.2018 147, 148, 285, 506, 201 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act City Thanesar

12. 1097/2019 - 148, 149, 427, 506, 455, 120-B IPC

¶13392/2017 - 323, 325, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC Ladwa

¶1432/2020 - 307, 452, 341 IPC and Arms Act Butana

¶15320/2020 - 25-29-54-59 of Arms Act City Thanesar

¶16159/2022 - 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 506, 307, 120-B IPC Indri

17.

25.02.2024 25/54/59 of Arms Act Pehowa

18.

12.03.2024 25-54-59 of Arms Act Sadar Phagwara

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That the brief facts of the present case are that on 15.01.2023 police party headed by ASI Rajan received a secret information that one Vishal alias Vicky Sodhi, who was an active member and sharp-shooter of Bhuppi Rana and Bambiha Gang and is wanted in several case along with the accused Rahul Malik, who is also a notorious type of person and has several cases registered against him, kept illicit weapons in their possession in huge members and they would be going from Shahabad to Ladwa on that day in order to commit some offence. On the basis of said information a raiding party was prepared and a naka was laid at the T-point between Shahabad and Ladwa. After some time, two persons were seen coming on foot from the side of GT Road Over-bridge and they were apprehended. They told their names as Vishal alias Vicky Sodhi and Rahul Malik. During the search of the petitioner/ accused Vishal alias Vicky Sodhi, one country made pistol was recovered from each pocket of his trousers. Another country-made pistol was recovered during the search of the bag of Vishal alias Vicky Sodhi. All the three pistols had five live cartridges each in their magazines. During the search of the accused Rahul, a pistol containing five live cartridges was recovered from the right pocket. Besides, the bag being carried by the accused Rahul was found to carry three country made pistols each containing one live cartridge.

¶3That on the basis of above said facts the present FIR no.30 INDIA dated 15.01.2023 under Sections 25 (1B), 25(6), 29 of the Arms Act and 120-B IPC added during investigation of the present case, registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra and intimation regarding registration of present case was also sent to the higher authorities."

¶4The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. REASONING:

¶6Allegations against the petitioner are that he was found in possession of three country made pistols containing five live cartridges each. Recovery of ammunition has already been effected. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars keeping in view the period already undergone by him and he is entitled to bail.

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since

15.01.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 06.04.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 02 years, 02 months and 14 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶8Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶9Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶13Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, police squad and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

¶14The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

¶15This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶16Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶17A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶18Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

29.04.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.04.2025 Pronounced on: 29.04.2025 Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, A.A.G., Haryana. ****