CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) Ajay @ Jaildar ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Punam Singh, Advocate, Ms. Rashi Sehrawat, Advocate and Mr. Bhanu Udai, Advocate for the complainant. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.119, dated 25.02.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, at Police HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -2- Station Pataudi, District Gurugram. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Ajit Singh, alleging therein that in the morning of 25.02.2022, he along with his brother Paramjit Singh and other family members was present outside the house of Dharambir Lumberdar when the petitioner along with 4-5 unknown persons and co- accused reached there in a scorpio vehicle and a motorbike. They were armed with weapons. They at once started firing shots with the firearms on the person of his brother Paramjit Singh. The petitioner and co-accused then proclaimed that elder brother of the complainant should also be killed. On hearing so, the complainant rushed towards his house and saw accused Sandeep Goriyawas, Dinesh, Rohit accompanied by some other persons while firing shots on his brother Sujit Singh. Clamour was raised by his father and aunt. On hearing so, several persons reached at the spot and then the assailants fled away. The injured Paramjit Singh and Sujit Singh were taken to the hospital but were declared to be brought dead. By alleging that on asking of one Dhanpat, his nephew Jassu and his sons had killed his brothers, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post mortem examination of the dead bodies of the victims was conducted. CCTV footages of the cameras installed in the vicinity of the occurrence were obtained. During investigation, accused Akshay was arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused for committing murder of victims Paramjit Singh and Sujit Singh. He disclosed that in HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -3- pursuance of that conspiracy on 25.02.2025, he along with accused Rohit had gone towards the place of occurrence on his motorbike whereas co- accused Sandeep Goriyawas, Dinesh and three more persons had also gone there. His pillion rider along with accused Sandeep and 02 more persons, whose names were not known to him, had fired shots upon the victims. He disclosed about leaving the bike used by him at village Goriyawas road and fleeing from the place of occurrence. Accused Akshay was identified by the complainant during the test identification parade. 4. Accused Sumit, Hoshiyar Singh @ Rinku, Vikaskant and Karambir were also subsequently arrested and disclosed about the complicity of the petitioner and other co-accused and got recovered a Scorpio vehicle used by him for absconding from the crime scene. The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2022. On interrogation, he too suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had came into contact with gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, Goldy Brar, Sandeep @ Kala Jathedi and Naresh Jathedi while being in custody in a murder case. Goldy Brar by using Signal App had contacted him and asked him to kill the victims for the purpose of fetching contracts of liquor and on his asking, he had joined co-accused Rohit, Dinesh, Akshay and Sandeep into conspiracy for committing murder of the victims. Other co-accused, namely, Sumit, Atul and Sunny Kakran were also joined. Shooters were hired for this purpose and on 24.02.2022, they had gathered at a place and had talked out the entire plan to commit murder in pursuance of which, he had given his vehicle to co-accused Rohit and then he had gone to Jaipur, Rajsathan on 24.02.2022. On the basis of his disclosure, other accused were also HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -4- arrested. Investigation qua him stands completed. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His presence at the spot of occurrence has not at all been established. He is alleged to be the main conspirator for murder of the victims. However, no material has been collected by the Investigating Agency to connect him with their murder. The disclosure statements allegedly suffered by co-accused cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence to connect him with the subject offences. It is a case of rivalry in liquor business and the complainant, who had become the sole beneficiary of said business, has falsely implicated him. The eye witness Rajji did not identify him as the assailant nor the complainant himself has identified him in the CCTV footage. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 38 out of 91 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is in custody since 22.03.2022. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner, who is a member of gang of gangster Goldy Brar, are quite serious in nature. He was the mastermind of the crime and had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victims by hiring contract killers and joining the co- accused. The recovery of 04 mobile phones and 02 dongles kept by him to coordinate with his accomplices and to facilitate the commission of subject offences, has been effected at his instance. The trial is going on at a proper HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -5- pace. There is sufficient material on record to connect him with the crime. The petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner on the asking of gangster Goldy Brar is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused in pursuance of which contract shooters were hired and murder of victims Sujit Singh and Paramjit Singh had been committed. The presence of the petitioner at the spot has not been prima facie established. However, the allegations make out a case of his active complicity in the crime by hatching conspiracy with the co-accused and for arranging the murder of the victims. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is in prolonged custody. However, in heinous crimes like the present one, an accused cannot be held entitled to seek concession of bail as a matter of right only on account of his prolonged incarceration. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. It is also well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58027-2025 (O&M) -6- Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). 9. In the light of the foregoing legal principles, the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 11. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 30.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document