CRM-M-7135 IN THE (143) ABHAY @ A STATE OF CORAM: Present: MANISHA B 1. Section 483 “BNSS”) for g 04.05.2023 reg IPC and Secti IPC added lat Police Station 2. written statem his nephew S dealing in part was registered 71357-2025 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
@ ABHI Versus
OF HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryan ****
HA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh for grant of regular bail in case ar 23 registered under Sections 148, 14 Section 25 of Arms Act (Section 32 ed later on and Section 285 and 42 tation Dhand, District Kaithal. The aforementioned FIR was r statement submitted by the complaina hew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in partnership with one Parveen, broth istered in the year 2019 on the compla 1 NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CRM-M-71357-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
E MANISHA BATRA
te for the petitioner aryana filed by the petitioner under uraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ase arising out of FIR No.73 dated 48, 149, 285, 323, 302, 379, 427 of ion 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of nd 427 of IPC deleted later on) at was registered on the basis of a plainant, Pyara Singh, alleging that gaged in the business of property , brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case omplaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ 2026 nder short ated 7 of 1 of n) at of a that perty case er @ AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 Gogi at Police assistance to J Ranjit Singh @ not to help registered agai 02.07.2019. H Sitaram had attend the hea accused Ranjit would get the gone to meet h and had reach Ram @ Satish conversation w Kapil, Mande person and Simultaneousl unknown pers vehicle of the powder in the seat of the veh injuries to him by the compla a pistol upon 71357-2025 (O&M) Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram ce to Jitender @ Gogi. The members ingh @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet ha the above-named Jitender @ d against them as they had committed 19. He alleged that on 18.04.2023 accompanied Rahul to the Dis he hearing of the case of murder o Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Par et the victim killed. He further allege meet his brother Ramdiya and when h reached near the corner of the stree Satish was standing outside his sco ation with someone on his mobile pho andeep and Anmol reached there and were seen rushing towards neously, accused Baljeet @ Kala and n person reached there and they dama of the complainant. Accused Anmo in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alar he vehicle, however, he was assaulted to him with the weapons carried by th omplainant and Kapil. However, the upon the victim and then fled away. 2 aram @ Satish had been providing mbers of the rival party consisting of jeet had been pressurizing Satish to r @ Gogi, and another case was mitted the murder of one Sandeep on .2023, his nephew i.e. the victim he District Courts, Kurukshetra, to rder of Sandeep, and at that time, nd Parveen had proclaimed that they alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had when he left the house of his brother e street, he saw that the victim Sita scorpio vehicle and was having phone. At the same time, accused accompanied by one unknown ards the vehicle of the victim. la and Ajay Rathore along with one y damaged the window panes of the Anmol @ Sunny threw red chilly ed alarm and rushed towards the rear saulted by the assailants who caused y them. Rescue alarm was raised , the assailants fired three shots with away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish iding ng of sh to was p on ictim a, to time, they had other Sita ving used own ctim. one f the hilly rear used aised with atish AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 succumbed to proceedings w conducted. 3. and Anmol @ statements on present petitio accused. The disclosure sta Anmol, Mand victim. In pu Sitaram @ conspiracy and the liquor ven scorpio vehicl Ajay who had completed and commission of 4. been falsely im only present whatsoever. T no evidence 71357-2025 (O&M) ed to the injuries. After registratio ings were initiated. Post-mortem exam As per the further allegations, the ol @ Sunny were arrested on 06.05.2 ts on the basis of which, Vikas @ B petitioner and some other co-accused . The present petitioner was arrested re statement admitting that he alon Mandeep and Vikas had hatched a In pursuance of that conspiracy, they Satish. On the night of 03.0 cy and as per instructions of Mandeep or vend of the victim Satish and whe vehicle, he had given intimation abo ho had subsequently killed the victim ed and the petitioner alongwith the sion of aforementioned offences. It is argued by learned counsel sely implicated in this case. He was n esent at the spot of occurrence an ver. The allegations that he had hatch ence has been collected in this r 3 istration of the FIR, investigation examination of the dead body was ns, the accused Mandeep @ Mandu 6.05.2023. They suffered disclosure s @ Budli, Abhay @ Abhi i.e. the cused were nominated as additional rrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered e alongwith the co-accused Baljit, ed a conspiracy for murder of the , they had done recce of deceased f 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the ndeep, he had remained present near d when Satish left his office in his n about the said fact to co-accused victim. Investigation now stands h the co-accused is facing trial for unsel for the petitioner that he has was not named in the FIR. He was nce and has not played any role d hatched a conspiracy are false and this regard. The ingredients for ion was andu sure . the ional fered jit, f the ased the near n his used nds l for has was role and for AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 commission o attracted qua h period of 02 Singh @ Mar already been deserves to b conclusion of against his f Constitution deserves to be 5. report has arg nature as by victim, he ha facilitating mu absconding or therefore, stres 6. counsel for bo 7. the co-accuse petitioner had 71357-2025 (O&M) sion of offence punishable under Sect qua him. He has clean antecedents f 02 years and 09 months. Similar Marku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ S been extended benefit of bail by th to be extended the same benefit. on of trial in the near future. His pro his fundamental rights guaranteed to release him on bail. It is, ther to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel as argued that the allegations agains s by hatching a conspiracy with the he had done recce of the deceased murder of the victim by the co-accu ing or intimidating the witnesses, if e e, stressed that the petition does not de This Court has heard the rival s for both the parties at considerable len The petitioner is alleged to be a accused to eliminate the victim and r had done recce of the deceased on t 4 er Section 120B of IPC are also not edents. He is in custody for over a imilarly situated co-accused Ranjit l @ Sunny and Rahul Pawar have by this Court. On parity, he too enefit. There are no chances of is prolonged incarceration militates ranteed under Article 21 of the is, therefore, argued that the petition ounsel while relying upon the status against the petitioner are serious in ith the co-accused to eliminate the ceased on the fateful day thereby accused. There are chances of his es, if extended benefit of bail. It is, not deserve to be allowed. rival submissions made by learned ble length. be a part of conspiracy hatched by m and as per the allegations, the d on the fateful night and had given not ver a anjit e too s of itates the tition tatus us in e the reby f his It is, rned d by , the iven AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 information a committed the FIR and has b disclosure stat doing recce of been attributed victim. Takin against him a custody, the conclude as on far, coupled w main material considered op Accordingly, released on ba the satisfactio Magistrate con 8. the petitioner, application see 9. for the purpos bearing on the 71357-2025 (O&M) tion about his activities/whereabouts ed the murder of the victim. The pe s been made co-accused subseque re statements of the co-accused Man cce of the victim and passing of infor ributed to him. The petitioner is not al Taking into consideration the natur him and the role attributed to him, , the fact that the trial still likely e as only 02 out of 33 prosecution wit pled with the fact that the complaina aterial witness of the case has turned ed opinion that the petitioner dese ngly, the petition is allowed and th on bail subject to his furnishing perso sfaction of the learned trial Court/C ate concerned. In the event of there being any ioner, it shall be open to the responden ion seeking cancellation of bail. It is made clear that any observat urpose of deciding the present petitio on the merits of the case. 5 abouts to the assailants, who had he petitioner was not named in the bsequently only on the basis of the Mandeep and Anmol. The act of information to the perpetrators has not alleged to be the assailant of the nature of the accusations levelled him, the period spent by him in ikely to take considerable time to on witnesses have been examined so plainant Pyara Singh who was the turned hostile, this Court is of the r deserves to be released on bail. and the petitioner is ordered to be g personal as well as surety bonds to ourt/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty g any FIR/complaint lodged against ondent to seek redressal by filing an servation made herein above is only petition and the same shall have no had n the f the ct of s has f the elled m in e to ed so s the f the bail. o be ds to Duty ainst g an only e no AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 10. if any, is rende 25.02.2026 Amit Sharma 71357-2025 (O&M) Since the main petition has been s rendered infructuous. Whether speaking/reasoned:
   6 s been allowed, pending application, (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
ned:- Yes/No
 tion, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.