IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 208 JASBIR @ RAJE STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case FIR No. 302, 307, 120 1959, registered at Police Station 2. the petitioner after obtaining NOC from the earlier counsel. 3. was nominated as an accused following a supplementary statement made by the complainant Ram Niwas; the only role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, is of having conspired with the co-acc IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50477 Date of decision: JASBIR @ RAJE Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana with ASI Manjit Singh. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case FIR No.155 dated 16.04.2024 302, 307, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , registered at Police Station Meham, District Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate has put in appearance the petitioner, and placed on record his Power of Attorney in the Court today after obtaining NOC from the earlier counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that was nominated as an accused following a supplementary statement made by the complainant Ram Niwas; the only role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, is of having conspired accused in carrying out the murder of the deceased Wazir. It has IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 50477-2024 Date of decision: September 22, 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Sr. DAG, Haryana The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of for grant of regular bail to the 16.04.2024 under Sections 148, 149, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, , District Rohtak (Annexure P-1). has put in appearance on behalf of his Power of Attorney in the Court today after obtaining NOC from the earlier counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was nominated as an accused following a supplementary statement made by the complainant Ram Niwas; the only role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, is of having conspired used in carrying out the murder of the deceased Wazir. It has Petitioner .....Respondent The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of for grant of regular bail to the 148, 149, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, on behalf of his Power of Attorney in the Court today the petitioner was nominated as an accused following a supplementary statement made by the complainant Ram Niwas; the only role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, is of having conspired Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50477 been argued by the learned counsel that e prosecution, the petitioner did not have any direct motive crime in question, much less lend any tacit support to the prime accused Ankit @ Godhu prosecution, Lab accused Ankit @ Godhu, the bag containing weapon of offence to the petitioner. However, learned counsel asserts that concededly, the bag con not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, much less following any disclosure statement made by him. 4. is apparently a case of false implication in evidence gathered by the prosecution directly or even indirectly connecting the petitioner with the murder in question. 5. previous criminal antecedents, learned categorically replied in the negative. 6. the prayer and submission disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor ha only role attributed to the petitioner is of being a conspirator; any weapon of offence has been made from the petitioner. 50477-2024 been argued by the learned counsel that e prosecution, the petitioner did not have any direct motive crime in question, much less lend any tacit support to the prime accused Ankit @ Godhu. It has still further been submitted that as rosecution, Labh Singh, who was allegedly accompanying the prime accused Ankit @ Godhu, who carried out the crime in question, handed over the bag containing weapon of offence to the petitioner. However, learned counsel asserts that concededly, the bag con not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, much less following any disclosure statement made by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it is apparently a case of false implication in evidence gathered by the prosecution directly or even indirectly connecting the petitioner with the murder in question. On being pointedly asked as to whether the petitioner has any previous criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically replied in the negative. Per contra, learned State counsel the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor ha only role attributed to the petitioner is of being a conspirator; any weapon of offence has been made from the petitioner. -2- been argued by the learned counsel that even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not have any direct motive to carry out the crime in question, much less lend any tacit support to the prime accused . It has still further been submitted that as per the case of the h Singh, who was allegedly accompanying the prime out the crime in question, handed over the bag containing weapon of offence to the petitioner. However, learned counsel asserts that concededly, the bag containing weapon of offence was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, much less following any Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it is apparently a case of false implication in the absence of any qualitative evidence gathered by the prosecution directly or even indirectly connecting On being pointedly asked as to whether the petitioner has any counsel for the petitioner has , learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing s made by the counsel opposite, has neither disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed that the only role attributed to the petitioner is of being a conspirator; no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made from the petitioner. ven as per the case of the to carry out the crime in question, much less lend any tacit support to the prime accused the case of the h Singh, who was allegedly accompanying the prime out the crime in question, handed over the bag containing weapon of offence to the petitioner. However, learned taining weapon of offence was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, much less following any Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it the absence of any qualitative evidence gathered by the prosecution directly or even indirectly connecting On being pointedly asked as to whether the petitioner has any counsel for the petitioner has ing neither that the no recovery of Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50477 7. instructions, has also conceded that had neither been procured from the petitioner nor were they his possession or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him. However, it has been asserted that soon after the occurrence in question, the bag containing the weapon of offence had been handed over to the petitioner by co-accused Labh place of occurrence. disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, nor has it been disputed that as on date, only prosecution have been examined 8. made in the FIR (Annexure P I, Ram Niwas son of Tara Chand, am the resident of village from Meham Court, I and my brother Wazir and my wife Guddi, 50477-2024 On being pointedly asked, learned State counsel, on instructions, has also conceded that the firearms used to commit the crime had neither been procured from the petitioner nor were they his possession or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him. However, it has been asserted that soon after the occurrence in question, the bag containing the weapon of offence had been handed over to the petitioner accused Labh Singh, who was accompanying the prime accused to the place of occurrence. On a further query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, nor has it been disputed that as on date, only prosecution have been examined-in-chief. Learned State counsel nonetheless has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR (Annexure P-1), which stands reproduced hereinunder: “To, The S.H.O., Police station Meham. Sir, It is requested that I, Ram Niwas son of Tara Chand, am the resident of village Nidana, District Rohtak and am a Zimidar. We are five brothers. The eldest one is Shamsher, younger to him is Satbir, younger to him, myself, younger to me is Wazir and the youngest one is Krishan. All the brothers are married and are living separately with our families and children. The eldest brother Shamsher and Wazir are living in Loharu alongwith their families and children. In the year 2018, Jai Bhagwan son of Ramehar, resident of Nidana had got registered an FIR No.706 of 2018 under Section 148/149/323/324/452/506 IPC, Police station Meham, against me and my family. The same was listed for hearing in the Meham Court. Today I and m Krishan son of Bhim Singh and Deepak son of Bhim Singh and Sanjit son of Shamsher, resident of Nidana had come to the Meham Court for hearing. Upon getting the date of hearing from Meham Court, I and my brother Wazir and my wife Guddi, after purchasing the household articles, had reached Bhiwani Stand, Meham. My brother was waiting for the bus for Bhiwani -3- On being pointedly asked, learned State counsel, on the firearms used to commit the crime had neither been procured from the petitioner nor were they recovered from his possession or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him. However, it has been asserted that soon after the occurrence in question, the bag containing the weapon of offence had been handed over to the petitioner Singh, who was accompanying the prime accused to the On a further query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, nor has it been disputed that as on date, only prosecution witnesses out of the 41 Learned State counsel nonetheless has reiterated the allegations 1), which stands reproduced hereinunder: - To, The S.H.O., Police station Meham. Sir, It is requested that I, Ram Niwas son of Tara Chand, am the resident of village Nidana, District Rohtak and am a Zimidar. We are five brothers. The eldest one is Shamsher, younger to him is Satbir, younger to myself, younger to me is Wazir and the youngest one is Krishan. All the brothers are married and are living separately with our families and children. The eldest brother Shamsher and Wazir are living in Loharu alongwith their families and year 2018, Jai Bhagwan son of Ramehar, resident of Nidana had got registered an FIR No.706 of 2018 under Section 148/149/323/324/452/506 IPC, Police station Meham, against me and my family. The same was listed for hearing in the Meham Court. Today I and my brother Wazir and Krishan son of Bhim Singh and Deepak son of Bhim Singh and Sanjit son of Shamsher, resident of Nidana had come to the Meham Court for hearing. Upon getting the date of hearing from Meham Court, I and my brother Wazir and my wife Guddi, after purchasing the household articles, had reached Bhiwani Stand, Meham. My brother was waiting for the bus for Bhiwani On being pointedly asked, learned State counsel, on the firearms used to commit the crime recovered from his possession or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him. However, it has been asserted that soon after the occurrence in question, the bag containing the weapon of offence had been handed over to the petitioner Singh, who was accompanying the prime accused to the On a further query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, nor witnesses out of the 41 Learned State counsel nonetheless has reiterated the allegations To, The S.H.O., Police station Meham. Sir, It is requested that I, Ram Niwas son of Tara Chand, am the resident of village Nidana, District Rohtak and am a Zimidar. We are five brothers. The eldest one is Shamsher, younger to him is Satbir, younger to myself, younger to me is Wazir and the youngest one is Krishan. All the brothers are married and are living separately with our families and children. The eldest brother Shamsher and Wazir are living in Loharu alongwith their families and year 2018, Jai Bhagwan son of Ramehar, resident of Nidana had got registered an FIR No.706 of 2018 under Section 148/149/323/324/452/506 IPC, Police station Meham, against me and my family. The same was listed for y brother Wazir and Krishan son of Bhim Singh and Deepak son of Bhim Singh and Sanjit son of Shamsher, resident of Nidana had come to the Meham Court for hearing. Upon getting the date of hearing from Meham Court, I and my brother Wazir and my wife Guddi, after purchasing the household articles, had reached Bhiwani Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50477 family of Ankit alias Godhu. Due to that enmity, Ankit alias family members Rahul son of Ramesh alias Thhutti, Ranbir son 9. relevant material placed on record. 10. resting on circumstantial evidence. As not disputed, there is no direct mot attributed to the petitioner to have conspired with the co the murder in question. The only role, if any, attributed to the petitioner is of having received the bag containing the weapon of offfence, which was allegedly concealed by h 11. case, and keeping in view that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future with 39 Court deems it fit to admit the petitioner to bail. 50477-2024 and I and my wife had come back. At the same time, there was a sound of firing. I saw upon going near, and saw that two boys on one motorcycle were firing on my brother Wazir. With them, in a white car of DL number, four car was parked near to the motorcycle. There was an enmity with regard to the earlier case, between our family and the family of Ankit alias Godhu. Due to that enmity, Ankit alias Godhu son of Ranbir, resident of Nidana in connivance with hi family members Rahul son of Ramesh alias Thhutti, Ranbir son of Sarju and wife of Ranbir and Sahil alias Dhala, resident Nidana and his friends, has murdered my brother Wazir by opening firing on him. We have come to know that Babloo Numberdar son of Inder Singh, resident of Kishangarh has also suffered the bullets in this incident, whose treatment is going on in PGI, Rohtak. Strict legal be taken against all of them. In this incident, the son of Raju Langra is also involved. Legal action be also taken against him.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2024 in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. As not disputed, there is no direct mot attributed to the petitioner to have conspired with the co the murder in question. The only role, if any, attributed to the petitioner is of having received the bag containing the weapon of offfence, which was allegedly concealed by him thereafter. Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future with 39 prosecution witnesses still remaining to be examined, Court deems it fit to admit the petitioner to bail. -4- and I and my wife had come back. At the same time, there was a sound of firing. I saw upon going near, and saw that two boys on one motorcycle were firing on my brother Wazir. With them, in a white car of DL number, four-five persons were sitting. The car was parked near to the motorcycle. There was an enmity with regard to the earlier case, between our family and the family of Ankit alias Godhu. Due to that enmity, Ankit alias Godhu son of Ranbir, resident of Nidana in connivance with his family members Rahul son of Ramesh alias Thhutti, Ranbir son of Sarju and wife of Ranbir and Sahil alias Dhala, resident Nidana and his friends, has murdered my brother Wazir by opening firing on him. We have come to know that Babloo er Singh, resident of Kishangarh has also suffered the bullets in this incident, whose treatment is going on in PGI, Rohtak. Strict legal be taken against all of them. In this incident, the son of Raju Langra is also involved. Legal action I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2024 in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. As not disputed, there is no direct motive attributed to the petitioner to have conspired with the co-accused to commit the murder in question. The only role, if any, attributed to the petitioner is of having received the bag containing the weapon of offfence, which was Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near still remaining to be examined, this Court deems it fit to admit the petitioner to bail. and I and my wife had come back. At the same time, there was a sound of firing. I saw upon going near, and saw that two boys on one motorcycle were firing on my brother Wazir. With them, e sitting. The car was parked near to the motorcycle. There was an enmity with regard to the earlier case, between our family and the family of Ankit alias Godhu. Due to that enmity, Ankit alias s family members Rahul son of Ramesh alias Thhutti, Ranbir son of Sarju and wife of Ranbir and Sahil alias Dhala, resident Nidana and his friends, has murdered my brother Wazir by opening firing on him. We have come to know that Babloo er Singh, resident of Kishangarh has also suffered the bullets in this incident, whose treatment is going on in PGI, Rohtak. Strict legal be taken against all of them. In this incident, the son of Raju Langra is also involved. Legal action I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2024 in a case ive accused to commit the murder in question. The only role, if any, attributed to the petitioner is of having received the bag containing the weapon of offfence, which was Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near his Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50477 12. be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety the Trial Court/Duty 13. the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek cancellation of bail to him. September 22 Jaspreet Kaur 50477-2024 Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek cancellation of bail to him. September 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No and the petitioner of misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.22 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh