CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) Sumit Talian ... 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. Rahul Deswal, 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-53837-2025 (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 accused Ajay @ Jaildar 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. Accused Ajay @ Jaildar 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 declared to be brought dead. By alleging that on asking of one Dhanpat, his nephew Jassu and his sons had murdered 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 were 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 HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) -3- murder of victims Paramjit Singh and Sujit Singh. He disclosed that in 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 accused Ajay @ Jaildar and other co-accused as well as their own involvement in the crime and got recovered a Scorpio vehicle used by him for absconding from the crime scene. Accused Ajay @ Jaildar was arrested on 22.03.2022. On interrogation, he too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by way of hatching a conspiracy to eliminate the victims. He disclosed that co-accused Naresh Sethi had sent three shooters, namely, Sumit @ Coach i.e. the present petitioner, Atul @ Mota and Sunny Kakran for assailing the victims and the arrangement for their stay was made by accused Karambir. On his disclosure, the petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 09.04.2022. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he was introduced with Sunny Kakran, a member of gang of Kala Jathedi, gangster. Accused Sunny Kakran had called him and accused Atul @ Mota to his room at Modi Nagar, Merut and had asked them to kill the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) -4- victims in lieu of money. He had accepted the offer. He further disclosed that on 24.02.2022, he along with co-accused Sunny Kakran and Atul @ Mota had been left by accused Karambir at village Goriyawas. They had been taken to a kothra belonging to accused Ajay. He further disclosed that accused Sandeep, Dinesh, Vikaskant, Hoshiyar, Akshay and Ajay @ Jaildar were already present in the kothra and a conspiracy was hatched to kill the victims. He further disclosed about going towards the place of occurrence along with co-accused and then fired shots upon victim Paramjit Singh. He disclosed that they had left the motorbike and spot of occurrence on the Scorpio vehicle of co-accused Rohit. Some other accused were also 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 on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not present at the spot. He had no role to play in commission of the subject offences. He was not even seen in the CCTV footage of the incident. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 38 out of 91 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 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 are quite serious in nature. His active complicity in the offence of HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) -5- commission of murder of the victims stands established from the material collected during the course of investigation. He was one of the actual assailants and had gone towards the place of occurrence on the motorbike of accused Akshay, had fired shots on the victims, thereby killing them and had fled from the spot in a Scorpio vehicle. His antecedents are also not clean as several cases of serious nature have been registered against him. There are chances of petitioner's intimidating the witnesses, absconding or committing similar offences, 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 is alleged to have been hired as a contract killer by co-accused Ajay @ Jaildar to kill the victims. He is further alleged to be one of the actual assailants. He is a habitual offender being involved in several other cases. This is a case of brutal murder of two persons. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against him. 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, HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53837-2025 (O&M) -6- 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. 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