CRM-M-38814- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Abhishek State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the course of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has been roped in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family property dispute. 3. It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021. As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family property dispute. It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the of the complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- Mahinder Singh prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in his death. However, according the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. 4. It is further pleaded that during the course of of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of off recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the basis of omnibus allegations. 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved i under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been spe It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to b State counsel has als influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. During the pendency of the prese directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material -2024 (O&M) Mahinder Singh, his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in his death. However, according to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is further pleaded that during the course of of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of off recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the basis of omnibus allegations. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved i under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been spe It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to b State counsel has also submitted that there is every influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. During the pendency of the prese directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material -2- , his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is further pleaded that during the course of investigation, the mother of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of offence has been recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to be led. Learned o submitted that there is everylikelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, During the pendency of the present bail petition, this Court had directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material , his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after investigation, the mother of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father ence has been recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. n a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out cifically named in the FIR. It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the e led. Learned likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, nt bail petition, this Court had directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Even during his cross support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namel Shyam Singh, who is stated to be an eye of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial Court. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided entering the witness box, th suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace. No useful purpose would be served bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Cour view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail b Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession -2024 (O&M) witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Even during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namel Shyam Singh, who is stated to be an eye-witness and also happens to be the father of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided entering the witness box, the prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Cour view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession -3- witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW-5. However, the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namel witness and also happens to be the father of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided e prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing onds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In owever, the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namely witness and also happens to be the father of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided e prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without t is of the considered Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing onds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- of bail in any manner. Nothing expression on the merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. January 14, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2024 (O&M) of bail in any manner. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. 6 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- observed hereinabove shall be construed as an Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No observed hereinabove shall be construed as an TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document