CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Mohit ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. J. S. Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the third petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 127 dated 22.06.2022, registered under Sections 302, 34, 201 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak. His previous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Shamsher Singh alleging therein that his daughter Parvin was married with Ved Prakash. His son-in-law Ved Prakash was murdered in the year 2017. It was further alleged that on MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -2- 22.06.2022, the complainant received information that someone has murdered his daughter Parvin. On receiving such information, he along with his family members reached at the house of his daughter at village Bhali Anandpur and found that out of a conspiracy, his daughter had been killed by someone by shooting her with a bullet. He further alleged that on seeing the CCTV footage of cameras installed in the house of the deceased, it was revealed that three persons with covered faces had entered into the house of his daughter with intention to kill her in conspiracy hatched with other accused. The complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim and inquest proceedings were conducted. 3. During the course of investigation, on the basis of a secret information and CCTV footage, the police arrested co-accused Amit @ Meeta, Vikas @ Vicky and Suraj @ Dangi on 26.06.2022. Their disclosure statements were recorded, pursuant to which three country-made pistols along with three live cartridges were recovered. The accused also demarcated the place of occurrence. During investigation, it further came to light that the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence had been abandoned on the road between village Sanghi and Chiri, District Rohtak, with the intention of destroying evidence. The said motorcycle was recovered on 28.06.2022, whereupon Section 201 IPC was added to the case. The name of the present petitioner and co-accused Sandeep @ Bacchi surfaced in the disclosure statements of the aforementioned co-accused with the allegations that they, while lodged in jail in connection with other cases, had hatched a conspiracy to kill the victim. Both of them were arrested in the present case on 05.07.2022 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -3- by way of issuance of production warrants. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in commission of subject crime. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by above named co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. He was not even named in the FIR. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The only role attributed to him is of hatching conspiracy with co-accused Sandeep @ Bacchi to kill the victim, though it is admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of commission of subject crime, he along with said co-accused was in judicial custody. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. An application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning some other persons as additional accused has been allowed. Prior to that, out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 07 witnesses had been examined. Hence, in the changed circumstances, the trial is going to take even more time in its conclusion as it would start afresh. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period over 04 years. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose, which otherwise militates against his constitutional right of freedom and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 5. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. The petitioner was the brother-in-law of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -4- the deceased, who along with co-accused Sandeep @ Bacchi had hatched a conspiracy with co-accused to kill the victim, in furtherance of which, the victim had been killed by firing gunshots upon her on 22.06.2022. Trial may be expedited. Petitioner has criminal antecedents. There are chances of the petitioner’s absconding or intimidating the prosecution witnesses, if released on bail. Hence, it is argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His implication in the present case is primarily on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused and the allegation that he had conspired with co- accused Sandeep @ Bacchi to eliminate the deceased. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of the occurrence, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in another criminal case. Whether the prosecution succeeds in establishing the alleged conspiracy is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. At this stage, this Court is not expected to delve into the merits of the evidence or record any finding thereon. It is further not disputed that the investigation stands concluded and the final report has already been presented before the Court. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than 04 years. Although the allegations against him are undoubtedly serious, the gravity of the offence alone cannot be a ground to deny bail when the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period. The record further reveals that the trial is progressing at a slow pace. Out of the prosecution witnesses, only a few have been examined and, in the meantime, additional accused have been summoned MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -5- under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as a consequence of which the trial is to start afresh, thereby taking considerable time in its conclusion. Thus, there is no immediate likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, impinge upon his valuable right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side during trial and considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the completion of investigation, presentation of the challan, the likely delay in conclusion of the trial as well as the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and also subject to following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted by the Court concerned. (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating agency. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or attempt to influence the witnesses in any manner. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54420-2025 (O&M) -6- permission of the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall intimate his current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court and shall keep them updated in case of any change. (vi) In case the petitioner is found involved in any offence of a similar nature or misuses the concession of bail in any manner, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 15.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document