CRM-M-15947- IN THE H KAMAL STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. N **** MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya of regular bail in under Sections 103 short “BNS”) and Station Kherki Da -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.32 ns 103(1), 191(3), 190, 61(2) of Bhara and Section 25(1-B)(a), 27(1) and rki Daula, District Gurugram. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-15947-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 21.05.2026 onounced 22.05.2026 loaded on the 22.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA for the petitioner filed by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 323 dated 05.08.2025 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for 1) and 29B of Arms Act at Police oner dent ction grant tered (for olice AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15947- 2. The a complaint submitt his younger brothe of 04.08.2025, he work to Noida. O been shot by some his vehicle was f Gurugram, where 3. After Post-mortem of d Shakti, who was statement wherein victim Rohit. He w interrogation, he complicity of the Shakti, who too w suffered disclosur demarcated the pla 4. In pu the present petiti 25.09.2025 and su custody in Sonepa contact with accus -2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Vijay S brother Rohit was a property dealer b 25, he had borrowed his vehicle for t da. On the same evening, he received y someone. He immediately went to t was found lying. His brother had here he had been declared to be broug After registration of FIR, investigatio of dead body of victim was conduc was in custody in FIR No.567 of herein he admitted the factum of his t. He was joined into investigation of n, he again suffered disclosure sta of the co-accused Shubham @ Kala, too were nominated as an accused a closure statements admitting their in the place of occurrence. In pursuance of the disclosure statem petitioner was also nominated as and suffered disclosure statement to Sonepat Jail in connection with some accused Padam @ Raja and Gautam registered on the basis of a written ijay Shaukeen, alleging therein that ealer by profession. On the evening e for the purpose of going for some ceived intimation that his brother had to the place of occurrence, where r had been sent to Civil Hospital, e brought dead. stigation proceedings were initiated. conducted. On 05.09.2025, accused 567 of 2025, suffered a disclosure of his involvement in the murder of ion of this case and was arrested. On re statement disclosing about the Kala, Gautam @ Gogi, Sudeep and used and were arrested. They also heir involvement in the crime and statement of the accused-Shubham, d as such. He was arrested on ent to the effect that while being in some other case, he had come into autam @ Gogi who too were lodged ritten that ning some r had here pital, ated. used sure er of . On the and also and ham, d on g in into dged AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15947- therein. He disclo the victim and ha purpose. And then @ Raja and Gauta persons also. He his house by the c had to bring mon disclosed that as p of Rs.3 lakhs from money, a sum of remaining was giv was arrested subse 5. It is a falsely implicated accused which can named in the FIR. offences. Even ot the only allegation lakhs received fro over a period of purposes. No us anymore. His inv -2026 (O&M) 3 disclosed that Sunil Sardhana, a frien and had asked his father to arrange nd then on asking of his father, he had Gautam @ Gogi who hatched a con . He disclosed that the plan to murde y the co-accused and himself, as per g money sent by Sunil Sardhana fr at as per the conspiracy, his father and s from some unknown persons in the um of Rs.1.5 lakhs was kept by him as given to accused Padam @ Raja. subsequently. Investigation now stan is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di ich cannot be considered to be admiss e FIR. No motive has been attributed ven otherwise there is no allegation th egation against him is of playing a rol ed from Sunil Sardhana. It is also ar od of 07 months. He is not requ No useful purpose would be served is involvement in other cases cannot a friend of his father intended to kill rrange for some assailants for this he had contacted the accused Padam a conspiracy by joining some other murder the victim had been made at as per which, his father and himself ana from somewhere. He further er and himself, had received amount in the Murthal area. Out of the said by him and his father whereas the Raja. The accused Padam @ Raja w stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- admissible in evidence. He was not ributed to him to commit the subject tion that he had killed the victim and g a role in transfer of a sum of Rs.3 argued that he is in custody for t required for further investigation erved by detaining him in custody cannot be considered to be a reason o kill this dam other de at self rther ount said s the Raja been - s not bject and Rs.3 y for ation tody ason AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15947- for denying benef released on bail. 6. Per c report has veheme serious in nature. accused Sunil Sard his father had prec active participating allegations against is a habitual offe committing simil extended benefit deserve to be allow 7. This C for the parties at co 8. The his father and co that conspiracy an the co-accused. H and had given mo purpose of murder of a facilitator but -2026 (O&M) 4 benefit of bail to him. It is, thus, a Per contra, learned State counsel w ehemently argued that the allegations ature. His role was not limited to t il Sardhana and giving the same to th d precipitated the commission of offen ipating in the conspiracy hatched with against him are much graver. It is fur l offender. There are chances of h similar offences, tampering with nefit of bail. It is, therefore, stress e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have hatc d co-accused Sunil Sardhana to kill t acy and to facilitate the commission of sed. He is alleged to have contacted t en money to him, so that other assaila murdering the victim. The role as suc tor but also of an active participant in thus, argued that he deserves to be nsel while relying upon the status ations against the petitioner are quite d to taking money at the behest of e to the co-accused but he alongwith f offence of murder of the victim by d with the co-accused and hence, the t is further argued that the petitioner s of his intimidating the witnesses, with evidence or absconding, if stressed that the petition does not ubmissions made by learned counsel e hatched a conspiracy initially with o kill the victim and in pursuance of sion of the principal homicidal act by acted the co-accused Padam @ Raja assailants could also be hired for the as such attributed to him is not only pant in the conspiracy to murder the to be tatus quite st of with m by , the ioner sses, g, if s not unsel with ce of ct by Raja r the only r the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15947- victim. The trial there would be a against the petition law that grant of b specific facts and parameters set out such as nature of conviction and na That apart reasona the material witne foregoing legal pr finds no compelli dismissed. 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 22.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 e trial has commenced and there is n be any undue delay in conclusion petitioner are quite serious in nature. I nt of bail is a discretionary relief to b s and circumstances of each case and t set out for considering the application ure of accusations, severity of punishm nd nature of evidence in support of t easonable apprehension of tampering l witnesses is also to be weighed. gal principles and the circumstances mpelling ground to allow the petitio It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No e is nothing on record to show that lusion of the trial. The allegations ture. It is well settled proposition of ief to be granted or denied based on e and there cannot be any exhaustive ication for grant of bail. The factors unishment if the accusations entail, rt of the accusations are to be seen. pering with evidence or threatening hed. Taking into consideration the ances as discussed above, this Court petition. Accordingly, the same is e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No that tions on of d on stive ctors ntail, seen. ning the ourt e is l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.