CRM-M-29534- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (226) BIJENDER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Suraj Bhan Panchal, Advocate **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3), 118, 115(2), 351(3), 238, 62 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Rohtak Sadar, District Rohtak. 2. The aforementioned FIR was initially regi 110, 190, 191(3), 195(2) and 351(3) of BNS on the basis of statement recorded by the victim Dev was going for his work on his motorbike and when he reached nea Bypass area, a Tata Ne had swerved his motorbike to save himself and had fallen down in a pile of mud. Then he had tried to run away towards the fiel -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Suraj Bhan Panchal, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3), 118, 115(2), 351(3), 238, 62 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Rohtak Sadar, District Rohtak. The aforementioned FIR was initially regi 110, 190, 191(3), 195(2) and 351(3) of BNS on the basis of statement recorded by the victim Dev Dutt, alleging therein that in the morning of 17.03.2025, he was going for his work on his motorbike and when he reached nea Bypass area, a Tata Nexon car tried to run him over with intent to kill him. He had swerved his motorbike to save himself and had fallen down in a pile of mud. ried to run away towards the field to save himself but 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29534-2026 (O&M) Date of decision :17.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Advocate for the petitioner for the complainant filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.65 dated 17.03.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3), 118, 115(2), 351(3), 238, 62 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Sections 110, 190, 191(3), 195(2) and 351(3) of BNS on the basis of statement recorded alleging therein that in the morning of 17.03.2025, he was going for his work on his motorbike and when he reached near Nasirpur xon car tried to run him over with intent to kill him. He had swerved his motorbike to save himself and had fallen down in a pile of mud. d to save himself but 5-6 youths (O&M) 2026 filed by the petitioner under Section seeking 65 dated 17.03.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3), 118, 115(2), 351(3), 238, 62 at Police Station stered under Sections 110, 190, 191(3), 195(2) and 351(3) of BNS on the basis of statement recorded alleging therein that in the morning of 17.03.2025, he r Nasirpur xon car tried to run him over with intent to kill him. He had swerved his motorbike to save himself and had fallen down in a pile of mud. 6 youths AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-29534- alighted from the car. They were armed with iron rods and pistols. They followed the victim and after catching hold of him, started hitting his legs with iron rods. On hearing the clamour raised by him, some passersby had reached there and then the assailants fled awa 23.05.2025. Offence under Section 103 of BNS added. Post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which cause of death was the complications having arisen out of the injuries sustained b victim. 3. As per the further allegations, during the course of investigation, accused Surinder was arrested on 26.03.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime, on the basis of the same his brother Davinder was nominated as accused on the allegations that with intent to kill the victim he had hatched a conspiracy with the petitioner and the other accused including accused Surinder to kill the victim. Accused Davinder @ Kala was arrested on 28.03.2025. As per petitioner had connived with him to hire some contract killers and had asked the co-accused Sunny to arrange for the same. As per his further disclosure, the accused Virender, Ashish purpose. Their stay was facilitated in some local hotel on the night of 16.03.2025. The petitioner alo stayed near Chamaria Bypass in a Scorpio vehicle whe Ashish, Inderjeet doing his recce and had caused injuries to him. Accused Ashish, Inderjeet and Virender were also arrested subsequently. The petitioner was arrested on -2026 (O&M) 2 he car. They were armed with iron rods and pistols. They followed the victim and after catching hold of him, started hitting his legs with iron rods. On hearing the clamour raised by him, some passersby had reached there and then the assailants fled away from the spot. The victim died on 23.05.2025. Offence under Section 103 of BNS added. Post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which cause of death was the complications having arisen out of the injuries sustained b As per the further allegations, during the course of investigation, accused Surinder was arrested on 26.03.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime, on the basis of the same his brother s nominated as accused on the allegations that with intent to kill the victim he had hatched a conspiracy with the petitioner and the other accused including accused Surinder to kill the victim. Accused Davinder @ Kala was arrested on 28.03.2025. As per the disclosure suffered by him, the present petitioner had connived with him to hire some contract killers and had asked the accused Sunny to arrange for the same. As per his further disclosure, the accused Virender, Ashish, Inderjeet, Prashant and Ank purpose. Their stay was facilitated in some local hotel on the night of 16.03.2025. The petitioner alongwith co-accused Davinder and Ankit had stayed near Chamaria Bypass in a Scorpio vehicle whe Inderjeet, Prashant, Pushker, Virender had followed the victim after doing his recce and had caused injuries to him. Accused Ashish, Inderjeet and render were also arrested subsequently. The petitioner was arrested on he car. They were armed with iron rods and pistols. They followed the victim and after catching hold of him, started hitting his legs with iron rods. On hearing the clamour raised by him, some passersby had reached y from the spot. The victim died on 23.05.2025. Offence under Section 103 of BNS added. Post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which cause of death was the complications having arisen out of the injuries sustained by the As per the further allegations, during the course of investigation, accused Surinder was arrested on 26.03.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime, on the basis of the same his brother s nominated as accused on the allegations that with intent to kill the victim he had hatched a conspiracy with the petitioner and the other accused including accused Surinder to kill the victim. Accused Davinder @ Kala was the disclosure suffered by him, the present petitioner had connived with him to hire some contract killers and had asked the accused Sunny to arrange for the same. As per his further disclosure, the Prashant and Ankit had been hired for such purpose. Their stay was facilitated in some local hotel on the night of accused Davinder and Ankit had stayed near Chamaria Bypass in a Scorpio vehicle whereas the above mentioned Virender had followed the victim after doing his recce and had caused injuries to him. Accused Ashish, Inderjeet and render were also arrested subsequently. The petitioner was arrested on he car. They were armed with iron rods and pistols. They followed the victim and after catching hold of him, started hitting his legs with iron rods. On hearing the clamour raised by him, some passersby had reached y from the spot. The victim died on 23.05.2025. Offence under Section 103 of BNS added. Post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which cause y the As per the further allegations, during the course of investigation, accused Surinder was arrested on 26.03.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime, on the basis of the same his brother s nominated as accused on the allegations that with intent to kill the victim he had hatched a conspiracy with the petitioner and the other accused including accused Surinder to kill the victim. Accused Davinder @ Kala was the disclosure suffered by him, the present petitioner had connived with him to hire some contract killers and had asked the accused Sunny to arrange for the same. As per his further disclosure, the it had been hired for such purpose. Their stay was facilitated in some local hotel on the night of accused Davinder and Ankit had reas the above mentioned Virender had followed the victim after doing his recce and had caused injuries to him. Accused Ashish, Inderjeet and render were also arrested subsequently. The petitioner was arrested on AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-29534- 09.07.2025. He too suffered disc the crime and got recovered 01 revolver Investigation stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The victim had sustained injuries on his legs. He had left was admitted against medical advice on 17.03.2025. He got admitted to some private hospital and had left to discharge the same on 22.03.2025 in a stable condition. He was admitted again on the same day but left against advice and had passed away on the same day. As per the medical opinion 04 grievous and 01 simple injury had been sustained by him. There was no opinion as to these injuries being dangerous to life. The victim was HIV positive person and therefore, his conspirator in this case Davinder has been extended benefit of bail. Even the persons who had allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of the victim have also been extended benefit of bail including Su conspirator. Practically all the accused have been extended benefit of bail. His case is at parity with the case of Davinder and Sunny and as such he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has been acquitted in some of these cases. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. -2026 (O&M) 3 09.07.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered 01 revolver, 2 bullets and 1 mobile phone. Investigation stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The victim had sustained injuries on his legs. He had left was admitted against medical advice on 17.03.2025. He got admitted to some private hospital and had left to discharge the same on 22.03.2025 in a stable condition. He was admitted again on the same day but left against advice and had passed away on the same day. As per the medical opinion 04 grievous and 01 simple injury had been sustained by him. There was no opinion as to these injuries being dangerous to life. The victim was HIV positive person his death could have been due to that reason. The main conspirator in this case Davinder has been extended benefit of bail. Even the persons who had allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of the victim have also been extended benefit of bail including Su conspirator. Practically all the accused have been extended benefit of bail. His case is at parity with the case of Davinder and Sunny and as such he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has been acquitted in some of these cases. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. losure statement admitting his involvement in 2 bullets and 1 mobile phone. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The victim had sustained injuries on his legs. He had left the PGIMS Rohtak wherein he was admitted against medical advice on 17.03.2025. He got admitted to some private hospital and had left to discharge the same on 22.03.2025 in a stable condition. He was admitted again on the same day but left against medical advice and had passed away on the same day. As per the medical opinion 04 grievous and 01 simple injury had been sustained by him. There was no opinion as to these injuries being dangerous to life. The victim was HIV positive person death could have been due to that reason. The main conspirator in this case Davinder has been extended benefit of bail. Even the persons who had allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of the victim have also been extended benefit of bail including Sunny who was also the conspirator. Practically all the accused have been extended benefit of bail. His case is at parity with the case of Davinder and Sunny and as such he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has been acquitted in some of these cases. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. losure statement admitting his involvement in 2 bullets and 1 mobile phone. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The victim the PGIMS Rohtak wherein he was admitted against medical advice on 17.03.2025. He got admitted to some private hospital and had left to discharge the same on 22.03.2025 in a stable medical advice and had passed away on the same day. As per the medical opinion 04 grievous and 01 simple injury had been sustained by him. There was no opinion as to these injuries being dangerous to life. The victim was HIV positive person death could have been due to that reason. The main conspirator in this case Davinder has been extended benefit of bail. Even the persons who had allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of the victim have nny who was also the conspirator. Practically all the accused have been extended benefit of bail. His case is at parity with the case of Davinder and Sunny and as such he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has been acquitted in some AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-29534- 5. Per co complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as he was one of the main conspirators who hatched conspiracy with a the co-accused Davinder and killers through co the allegations as levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have conspired with the co Davinder to kill the victim and in pursuance thereof is further alleged to have arranged contract killers throug who had alleged to have assaulted the victim have been extended benefit of bail. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co the evidence to be produced during the trial that any definite conclusion as to the victim having died to be drawn. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near f only 03 out of 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far consideration the above discussed facts, and on the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for r bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as -2026 (O&M) 4 Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as he was one of the main conspirators who hatched conspiracy accused Davinder and in pursuance thereof arranged contractor killers through co-accused Sunny. It is argued that in view of the seriousness of the allegations as levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have conspired with the co Davinder to kill the victim and in pursuance thereof is further alleged to have arranged contract killers through the co-accused Sunny and even the persons who had alleged to have assaulted the victim have been extended benefit of bail. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is the evidence to be produced during the trial that any definite conclusion as to the victim having died a homicidal death and as to involvement of the petitioner is to be drawn. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near f only 03 out of 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far consideration the above discussed facts, and on the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for r Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as ntra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as he was one of the main conspirators who hatched conspiracy in pursuance thereof arranged contractor accused Sunny. It is argued that in view of the seriousness of the allegations as levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have conspired with the co-accused Davinder to kill the victim and in pursuance thereof is further alleged to have accused Sunny and even the persons who had alleged to have assaulted the victim have been extended benefit of bail. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of accused. It is only on through assessment of the evidence to be produced during the trial that any definite conclusion as to the homicidal death and as to involvement of the petitioner is to be drawn. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak as only 03 out of 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, and on the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as 02 surety bonds to ntra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as he was one of the main conspirators who hatched conspiracy in pursuance thereof arranged contractor accused Sunny. It is argued that in view of the seriousness of the allegations as levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be submissions made by learned counsel accused Davinder to kill the victim and in pursuance thereof is further alleged to have accused Sunny and even the persons who had alleged to have assaulted the victim have been extended benefit of bail. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of only on through assessment of the evidence to be produced during the trial that any definite conclusion as to the homicidal death and as to involvement of the petitioner is uture are bleak as Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, and on the principle of parity, this Court elease on and the petitioner is ordered to be surety bonds to AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-29534- the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner w (ii) circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) of hearing. (iv) well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) PAN Card if any and deta the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mob (vi) the learned trial Court. -2026 (O&M) 5 the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide his perman well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the learned trial Court. the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :- The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall appear before each and every date The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, ils of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance ile phone switch on all times. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any The petitioner shall appear before each and every date ent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, ils of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-29534- 8. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent seeking cancellation of the bail. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 17.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.