CRM-M-39782 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AJAY RATHORE STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Present: Mr. Mr. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.73 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of IPC added later on and Section 285 and 427 of IPC deleted later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal. 39782-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM AJAY RATHORE Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.73 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of IPC added later on and Section 285 and 427 of IPC deleted later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, aithal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39782-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved 08.09.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.09.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 10.09.2026 operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable Advocate for the petitioner Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.73 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of IPC added later on and Section 285 and 427 of IPC deleted later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of IPC added later on and Section 285 and 427 of IPC deleted later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-39782 2. CRM-M-39782 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written statement submitted by the complainant nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting o @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet @ Kala, help the above against them as they had committed the murder 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18 had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Parveen had victim killed. He further alleged that on brother Ramdiya and when he left the near the corner of the street, he saw standing outside hi someone on his mobile phone. At the Anmol reached there weapons in their hands, victim. Simultaneously, Baljeet @ Kala petitioner along with the window panes of 39782-2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written statement submitted by the complainant-Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting o @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet @ Kala, had been help the above-named Jitender @ Gogi, and against them as they had committed the murder 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Parveen had proclaimed that they would victim killed. He further alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his brother Ramdiya and when he left the house of his brother and had reached near the corner of the street, he saw that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was standing outside his scorpio vehicle and was having conversation with someone on his mobile phone. At the same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep Anmol reached there, accompanied by one unknown person weapons in their hands, and were seen rushing towards the vehicle victim. Simultaneously, Baljeet @ Kala and Ajay Rathore along with one unknown person reached there and they damaged the window panes of the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ Gogi at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing assistance to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of Ranjit Singh had been pressurizing Satish to not to named Jitender @ Gogi, and another case was registered against them as they had committed the murder of one Sandeep on .04.2023, his nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, Kurukshetra, to attend the hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at that time, accused Ranjit proclaimed that they would get the 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his house of his brother and had reached that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was and was having conversation with same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep and by one unknown person, carrying and were seen rushing towards the vehicle of the and Ajay Rathore i.e. present one unknown person reached there and they damaged the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was Gogi assistance it Singh pressurizing Satish to not to another case was registered of one Sandeep on i.e. the victim Sitaram Kurukshetra, to attend the that time, accused Ranjit get the 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his house of his brother and had reached that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was and was having conversation with and , carrying of the i.e. present one unknown person reached there and they damaged the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-39782 Sunny threw red chilly rushed towards the rear assailants, who caused Rescue alarm was raised assailants fired three shots with The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation of the dead body was 3. As per the further allegations, the Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Vikas @ Budli accused. Co-accused Abhay disclosure statement of his identification, the present petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got demarcated the place of occurrence. Subsequently, some other co accused were arrested in the petitioner alongwith the co aforementioned offences. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 39782-2026 (O&M) 3 Sunny threw red chilly powder in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and rushed towards the rear seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the assailants, who caused injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. Rescue alarm was raised by the complainant and Kapil. However, the assailants fired three shots with a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post of the dead body was conducted. As per the further allegations, the Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure admitting their involvement in the crime and Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinde Vikas @ Budli and some other co-accused were nominated as additional accused Abhay @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and on the of his identification, the present petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got demarcated the place of occurrence. Subsequently, some other co accused were arrested in the case. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery has been effected from him. s of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. by the complainant and Kapil. However, the a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination As per the further allegations, the petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure admitting their involvement in the crime and on the basis of which, Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, accused were nominated as additional @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered his involvement in the crime and on the basis of his identification, the present petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got demarcated the place of occurrence. Subsequently, some other co- Investigation now stands completed and is facing trial for commission of It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been recovery has been effected from him. No s of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. by the complainant and Kapil. However, the a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of mortem examination petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure on the basis of which, r @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, accused were nominated as additional @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered basis of his identification, the present petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and - Investigation now stands completed and is facing trial for commission of It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been No AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-39782 specific overt act has been attributed to him. since 10.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. take considerable have been examined so far. The eye Kapil have not of the subject offences him with the allegations of Kala, Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Pawar have been extended benefit of favour. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel allegations against the petitioner. He alongwith conspiracy to eliminate the victim of the victim. offences, if extended benefit of bail. does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched co-accused to eliminate the victim of that conspiracy, he 39782-2026 (O&M) 4 specific overt act has been attributed to him. .05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. take considerable time to conclude as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The eye-witnesses not implicated the petitioner or the co of the subject offences and have turned hostile. him with the allegations of assaulting the victim Kala, Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ Sunny and Ra Pawar have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be released on bail. Learned State counsel has argued that tions against the petitioner. He alongwith conspiracy to eliminate the victim and had played an active role in the murder There are chances of his absconding or committing offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched accused to eliminate the victim Sitaram @ Satish that conspiracy, he had been killed by firing shots upon him on the fateful specific overt act has been attributed to him. The petitioner is in custody .05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. There is no incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Trial will as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses es Pyara Singh-complainant and the petitioner or the co-accused in the commission turned hostile. There is no material to link assaulting the victim. The co-accused Baljeet @ r, Anmol @ Sunny and Rahul bail. Principle of parity weighs in his Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the argued that there are serious tions against the petitioner. He alongwith the co-accused hatched a and had played an active role in the murder There are chances of his absconding or committing similar It is, therefore, stressed that the petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the Sitaram @ Satish and it was in pursuance killed by firing shots upon him on the fateful The petitioner is in custody .05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in There is no Trial will as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses complainant and accused in the commission There is no material to link Baljeet @ hul bail. Principle of parity weighs in his Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the there are serious accused hatched a and had played an active role in the murder lar petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned a conspiracy with the and it was in pursuance killed by firing shots upon him on the fateful AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-39782 day. The petitioner was named in the FIR. However, complainant-Pyara Singh and Kapil have learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a certified copies shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not there was no light, and the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled Further, eye-witness Kapil de know the petitioner and committed any offence however, he firmly adhered to the testimony. nature of the evidence which has the most material witness period spent by the petitioner in custody circumstances of the case petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned 39782-2026 (O&M) 5 petitioner was named in the FIR. However, Pyara Singh and Kapil have since been examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copies of testimonies of these witness shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not there was no light, and the street was dark. He the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled witness Kapil deposed before the Trial Court that he did not know the petitioner and affirmed that neither the petitioner nor the co committed any offence. He was also declared hostile and cross however, he firmly adhered to the testimony. nature of the evidence which has come on record in the form of testimon the most material witnesses i.e. the complainant period spent by the petitioner in custody circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. petitioner was named in the FIR. However, the eye-witnesses, since been examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a witnesses. Complainant-Pyara Singh is shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not see the assailants as He deposed that he had not seen the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co-accused. This witness had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the same stand, thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled against him. posed before the Trial Court that he did not affirmed that neither the petitioner nor the co-accused . He was also declared hostile and cross-examined, however, he firmly adhered to the testimony. Taking into consideration the come on record in the form of testimonies of complainant and eye-witness Kapil, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and , this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty witnesses, since been examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a Pyara Singh is as not seen witness had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public thereby against him. posed before the Trial Court that he did not accused examined, consideration the of , the attendant facts and , this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-39782 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the p bearing on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma 39782-2026 (O&M) 6 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. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only resent petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only resent petition and the same shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.