CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) Ajay Kumar ... 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. S.S. Brar, 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-60274-2025 (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 were 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 was conducted. CCTV footages of the cameras installed in the vicinity of the occurrence were obtained. During investigation, accused Akshay was arrested on 02.03.2022. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement to the effect that prior to the occurrence, he was going towards the kothra HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) -3- of the present petitioner at village Goriyawas when accused Rohit had met him and had disclosed that some youths of Naresh Sethi gang were staying in the kothra and he would have to provide meals to them. He disclosed that on asking of accused Rohit, he had taken food for 4-5 persons from the house of said Rohit and had provided the same to the persons living in the kothra of the present petitioner. Accused Ajay @ Jaildar was arrested on 22.03.2022, who too suffered disclosure statement admitting the factum of hatching conspiracy for committing murder of the victims and also disclosed that he had asked the co-accused Rohit to arrange for stay of shooters Vikas and Hoshiyar and the said Rohit had arranged the stay of above named shooters in the kothra of the present petitioner at village Goriyawas. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was apprehended on 05.05.2023. Some other accused were also arrested. Investigation qua him stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was 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 had no role to play in the murder of the victims. He was not named in the FIR nor in the CCTV footages of occurrence have shown his presence at the spot. He himself had surrendered in the Court. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him to the effect that some shooters had stayed in his kothra, cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that he had harboured stay of assailants of victims in any property owned by him. He is in custody since 05.05.2023. The chances of conclusion of trial in near HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) -4- future are bleak as only 38 out of 91 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are also clean. 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. 5. 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 harbourer of the assailants of the victims. His complicity in the crime stands established. It is, therefore, urged that the petition 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 provided shelter to the shooters, who had committed the murder of the two victims. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and harbouring the co- accused primarily rests on disclosure statement of co-accused and circumstantial inference. The role attributed to him is that of a conduit or facilitator in providing shelter to the co-accused and of harbouring them, which is distinct and remote offence from the direct commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. This Court is conscious that this is the case of murder of two persons and the offences are serious. However, this Court is required to test whether the material against the petitioner justifies his continued pre-trial incarceration. Since the case against him rests upon disclosure statement of the co-accused, this is matter best left HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) -5- with trial Court to decide on the basis of thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 03 years and 03 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 38 out of 91 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Taking into consideration the limited role ascribed to the petitioner, the period spent by him in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- (i) He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted. (ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner. (iii) He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial. (iv) He shall visit the Police Station concerned on the first Monday of every alternative month during the trial of the case and will mark his presence before SHO. In case of non- appearance, the SHO concerned shall HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60274-2025 (O&M) -6- intimate the trial Court. 8. 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. (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