CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 120 Rakesh State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 07.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2023 seeking No.333 dated Sections 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) Section 25 of the Arms Act later on) Matlauda, District Panipat. 2. Bhim Singh Matlauda A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co Baba. In order to settle the dispute, a the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused -16744-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 07.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Naveen Nandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR dated 10.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under s 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 ) and Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS Matlauda, District Panipat. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that Bhim Singh has alleged that he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co Baba. In order to settle the dispute, a Panchayat was convened at the shop of the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16744-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Naveen Nandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. al, Advocate for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under s 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) of BNS read with and Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (added and Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS (deleted) at Police Station FIR reflects that the complainant namely he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co-accused Jitender Kumar alias Panchayat was convened at the shop of the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused 483 of BNSS, grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under of BNS read with added at Police Station namely he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. accused Jitender Kumar alias Panchayat was convened at the shop of the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were goin the first floor of the shop, complainant Vikas with a knife Jitender Kumar Baba fired gunshot Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. taken to hospital registered. to addition of the offence of murder. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that petitioner in the FIR accused Surender and Jitend contended that attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part of the body has been attributed to him. weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and evidence which deceased. account of sudden altercation also been registered. case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands -16744-2026 Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were goin the first floor of the shop, suddenly a violent altercation e complainant has alleged that the accused Vikas with a knife. When the complainant tried to intervene, Jitender Kumar Baba fired gunshot at him which hit on his left shoulder. Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. taken to hospital. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered. Subsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading to addition of the offence of murder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR in question and the main allegations are against co accused Surender and Jitender Kumar Baba respectively. contended that even as per the allegations attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part of the body has been attributed to him. It has been weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and which connects the petitioner with the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased. According to learned counsel, the account of sudden altercation between two groups and a cross also been registered. It has been further case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands 2 Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were going on at a violent altercation ensued. The the accused Surender had attacked Ajit and . When the complainant tried to intervene, accused him which hit on his left shoulder. Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. The injured were . On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be ubsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that th petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned no specific injury has been attributed to the and the main allegations are against co er Kumar Baba respectively. It has been further even as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part It has been further contended that no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and there is no forensic with the fatal injuries suffered by the According to learned counsel, the incident in question arose between two groups and a cross-version has has been further argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky g on at . The attacked Ajit and accused him which hit on his left shoulder. Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence were . On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be ubsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading that the Learned no specific injury has been attributed to the and the main allegations are against co- It has been further in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part that no no forensic with the fatal injuries suffered by the arose on version has argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- collected by the investiga petitioner concluded and challan has already been presented Court of jurisdiction considerable time, therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner petitioner undertakes to abide by all imposed by this strength of these submissions, 4. petition by FIR with a clear State counsel, the petitioner is a deadly weapons and ha complainant to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly an the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all the accused persons -16744-2026 collected by the investigating agency. Learned counsel has pointed that the petitioner is stated to be in custody since concluded and challan has already been presented of jurisdiction. Since the conclusion of the trial is considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served continued incarceration of the petitioner. It has been further asserted that petitioner undertakes to abide by all the imposed by this Court while granting the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel petition by arguing that the petitioner has been FIR with a clear and active role in the occurrence. State counsel, the petitioner is a part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and has actively participated in the assault on the complainant which ultimately resulted in the death of one person. to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat-II, learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly an the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all the accused persons, relevant whereof reads as under: “4. Role of Petitioner:- He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender @ Sundar and others to Grain Market, M Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his companions did not apologize, they would teach them a lesson. During the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ Jeeta and Vicky Gujjar and kicked them. During the scuffle, 3 Learned counsel has pointed that the custody since 25.10.2025; investigation stands concluded and challan has already been presented before the competent Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take useful purpose would be served It has been further asserted that the terms and conditions that may be the concession of regular bail. On the grant of regular bail is entreated for. , learned State counsel has opposed the present has been specifically named in the active role in the occurrence. According to learned part of an unlawful assembly armed with actively participated in the assault on the tely resulted in the death of one person. Referring to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy II, learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly and the manner in which the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all , relevant whereof reads as under: He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender @ Sundar and others to Grain Market, Matlauda for the proposed Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his ologize, they would teach them a lesson. During the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ Jeeta and Vicky Gujjar and kicked them. During the scuffle, co-accused Learned counsel has pointed that the 25.10.2025; investigation stands competent likely to take useful purpose would be served for the may be On the present lly named in the According to learned part of an unlawful assembly armed with actively participated in the assault on the Referring to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy II, learned State counsel has iterated that the manner in which the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender atlauda for the proposed Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his ologize, they would teach them a lesson. During the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ accused AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- learned State counsel has further submitted that investigation, competent Court the specific role attributed to the petitioner, for the dismissal of the instant petition. 5. perused the available record. 6. Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bai evaluate factors such as the existence of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, fin and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the -16744-2026 Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the adhti's seat. Thus, the role attributed to Rakesh is primarily participation in the unlawful assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the opposite side, being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after the firing and participation in the events leading to the occurrence. Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has further submitted that investigation, the challan against the petitioner competent Court of jurisdiction. Considering specific role attributed to the petitioner, for the dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. The grant of bail falls within t ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bai evaluate factors such as the existence of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, fin and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the 4 Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the ributed to Rakesh is primarily participation assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after the firing and participation in the events leading to the occurrence.” Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has further submitted that after completion of challan against the petitioner stands presented before the Considering the gravity of the offence and specific role attributed to the petitioner, learned State counsel has prayed I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have he grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of The Court must also assess the lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing, and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the ributed to Rakesh is primarily participation assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, the presented before the gravity of the offence and has prayed I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have he discretionary domain of the ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and ourt must evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of ourt must also assess the lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. ancial means, societal standing, and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- administration of justice or thwarting its due course. in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Court 3490, -16744-2026 administration of justice or thwarting its due course. gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under: “14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate document undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was accused is charged of having committed a devoid of such reasons would suffer from non also necessary for the court granting bail to consider circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. 5 administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme relevant whereof reads as under: It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of sed absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of urse, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 ). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his e or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in reg to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order d of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or threat to the complainant. A profitable reference gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , 2005 AIR Supreme application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and punishment in the event of released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 may tamper witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the mere presence at large would he will use his e or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, :"The law in regard bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of ation of the merit of the case need not be need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima being granted particularly where the serious offence. Any order application of mind. It is among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: punishment in case of b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. nature. The material discloses that a group of accused persons who ha and have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury he was part of the object and with regard to to be ratiocinated upon evidence -16744-2026 c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. This Court also in specific terms held that : “the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone cer of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be bail when the gravity of the offence alleged allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused period he was on bail.” Indubitably, the allegations against the petitioner The material which has come on record, at this stage, discloses that the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving a group of accused persons who have assembled at the have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury s part of the unlawfuly assembly/fight object and participated in the events leading to the occurrence with regard to exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter to be ratiocinated upon during the course of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of 6 court in support of the charge. (see Ram vindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.” Court also in specific terms held that : the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely near future either by itself or coupled with the sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the he allegations against the petitioner are grave in on record, at this stage, prima facie the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving assembled at the place of occurrence have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side leading to the commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury but the prosecution case is that /fight which acted with a common participated in the events leading to the occurrence. The question exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter course of trial after appreciation of and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of Ram vindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR is sine qua non for under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration the unlikelihood of trial enlarge the accused offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in tain period incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely near future either by itself or coupled with the sufficient for enlarging the appellant on is severe and there are during the are grave in prima facie the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving place of occurrence leading to the commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed the prosecution case is that which acted with a common . The question exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter appreciation of and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- consideration of no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts attributed to co the concession of regular In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual liability cannot be asses particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates collective participation in an occurrence which person and injuries to others. allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place heavily against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial and none of the examined regarding the possibility of influencing wi this stage. attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though the petitioner has been in custody since already been presented dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him. 8. serious impact on on the person of the victim human life on the part of the petitioner. A circumstances have been made which -16744-2026 consideration of regular bail. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts attributed to co-accused persons, also does not persuade this Court to grant the concession of regular bail in the peculiar facts In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual liability cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates collective participation in an occurrence which person and injuries to others. This Court is also mindful allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial none of the prosecution witnesses out of total 37 witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of influencing wi . The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though the petitioner has been in custody since already been presented but these factors by themselves are not sufficient to dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him. It is apt to mention herein that the serious impact on the Society at large. The on the person of the victim prima facie human life on the part of the petitioner. A circumstances have been made which 7 raised on behalf of the petitioner that no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts does not persuade this Court to grant bail in the peculiar facts/circumstances of the case. In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual sed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates collective participation in an occurrence which resulted in the death of a This Court is also mindful of the gravity of the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place are the factors which weigh against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial out of total 37 witnesses have been Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of influencing witnesses cannot be brushed aside The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though the petitioner has been in custody since 25.10.2025 and the challan has these factors by themselves are not sufficient to dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him. apt to mention herein that the offence(s) in question have a . The intensity and the nature of injury prima facie reflect a complete disregard of human life on the part of the petitioner. At this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been made which may prima facie constitute a raised on behalf of the petitioner that are does not persuade this Court to grant of the case. In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual sed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates in the death of a of the gravity of the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which which weigh against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial out of total 37 witnesses have been Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution tnesses cannot be brushed aside at The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though llan has these factors by themselves are not sufficient to have a intensity and the nature of injury reflect a complete disregard of no accentuating constitute a AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- compelling g in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal consci only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the accused. 9. attributed to the petitioner prosecution witnesses Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual hand. 10. (i) dismissed. (ii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigatin as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order. (iii) July 07, 202 Ajay -16744-2026 compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the Considering the gravity of the offence attributed to the petitioner and the likelihood of his influencing the rosecution witnesses, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigatin as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 8 round for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of ence. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the gravity of the offence, the specific role and the likelihood of his influencing the this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No round for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of ence. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the specific role and the likelihood of his influencing the this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does of the case in The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove g agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document