CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2026 Ajay Singh@ Kala ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA. Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL). 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.240, dated 21.04.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 302, 506, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant – Amit, alleging therein that on the night of 20.04.2024, he was going towards the house of his uncle, when he was intercepted by the petitioner and the co-accused, who were sitting near a Chakki (Rajinder flour chakki). They called him towards them and then at once, opened an assault him by using iron rods, gandasis, bricks and swords. He sustained injuries on various parts of his body and raised clamour, on hearing which, his father Somnath rushed to the spot and tried HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) -2- to savee him but the assailants also asaulted him with rods and dandas. He sustained several injuries. In the meanwhile, his cousin brother Akash and PWs Deepak and Rampal had reached there, who tried for his rescue but they too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants and then they fled away. The injured were rushed to hospital but his father succumbed to the injuries. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 28.04.2024 along with co-accused Amit Malik alias Chhota. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered one wooden stick used by him at the time of occurrence. Other accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed. The previous petitions as filed by the petitioner for grant of interim bail had been disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.02.2026 and 06.11.2025. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are omnibus and general allegations against him. Neither any specific overt act nor any specific injury on the person of either of the injured/victim has been attributed to him. The complainant and PW Deepak have already been examined. There are no chances of his intimidating the material witnesses. PW Deepak has turned hostile. Even the testimony of the complainant suffers from material inconsistencies. The petitioner is suffering from several medical ailments. He is in custody for a period of about 01 year, 10 months and 04 days. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as only 06 out of 36 HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) -3- prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His antecedants are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as by forming an unlawful assembly with the co- accused and actively participating in the said unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, injuries were caused to victim-Somnath, which resulted in his death and the complainant had also sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner and co-accused. The complainant has duly supported the proseuciton version. On account of the fact that PW-4-Deepak eye-witness did not support the prosecution version in his examination-in- chief, the petitioner cannot draw any support becuase during his cross- examination by public prosecutor, he duly identified the petitioner as one of the assailants. It is,therefore, argued 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 formed a membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant and then his father and have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to them. The injuries sustained by the victim – Somnath caused his homicidal death. The petitioner himself has placed on record copies of sworn depositions of the complainant (PW2) and PW4-Deepak and a perusal HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) -4- of the testimony of complainant Amit shows that he duly supported the prosectuion version, while saying that intially, the present petitioner had merely objected to the altercation which took place between the complainant and co-accused but then he had opened an assault upon him and his father. He also categorically stated that the petitioner was having a gandasi with him. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and prima facie establishes his active complicity in the crime. He has also been linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 149 IPC, which has the following ingredients; 1. There must be an unlawful assembly; 2. Commission of an offence may be by any member of the unlawful assembly; and 3. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed. 8. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. The allegations prima facie show his involvement in the occurrence while having knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. He cannot be stated to be innocent only because no overt act has been attributed to him. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the gravity of the accusations of murder under Section 302 IPC. It is 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 HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22832-2026 (O&M) -5- parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, 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 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 and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition 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) 08.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document