CRM-M-29874-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 312 CRM-M-29874-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2026 Amardeep Lochab ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, 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.58, dated 31.02.2024, registered under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sector-8, Faridabad. 2. As per the allegations, Suraj Bhan, husband of the complainant Rajjo Devi was residing in a flat at Faridabad from the last six months. On 30.01.2024, she had come to meet him. In the evening time, her husband had gone to a Gym. At about 6:45 PM, on receipt of intimation that her husband had been shot at by someone, she rushed to the spot and came to know that some unknown assailants had killed him. On her complaint, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29874-2026 (O&M) -2- Postmortem examination of dead body and inquest proceedings were conducted. CCTV footage of the camera installed in the vicinity were collected and two youths were found opening indiscriminate firing upon the victim after alighting from a car. On the basis of statements of the complainant and her son, two persons namely, Paramjeet and Nitin Narula were nominated as accused. Accused Paramjeet was arrested on 01.03.2024. Accused Nitin Narula and Mangal Singh were arrested on 03.03.2024. Another accused Jyoti Prakash @ Baba was arrested on 16.03.2024. Challan qua the arrested accused was presented. 3. As per the further allegations, on 31.05.2024, accused Yogesh was arrested. Subsequently accused Sachinder Dabas @ Mona, Yogesh and Parveen were arrested. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sachinder Dabas @ Mona, Mohd. Faizal was nominated as an accused and was arrested on 22.10.2024. 4. During the course of further investigation, the petitioner was also nominated as an accused on the allegations that he along with co- accused had hatched a conspiracy to kill the victim. In pursuance of this conspiracy, he was given the responsibility to give shelter to the shooters of the victim and for arranging money to bear their expenses. He had given a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to co-accused Paramjeet Singh for giving the same to the shooters. He was arrested on 27.06.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also disclosed that after the occurrence when other accused were being arrested, he had absconded. Investigation now stands completed. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29874-2026 (O&M) -3- been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Paramjeet Singh, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. The similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sachinder Dabas has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the petitioner was one of the conspirators in the crime of murder of the victim. He had given a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to co- accused for the purpose of harbouring the actual shooters and had also arranged to give shelter to them. The allegations against him are serious in nature. He has criminal antecedents. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 8. The role attributed to the petitioner is that of hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused and then giving a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the co-accused for the purpose of giving the same to the actual assailants. The role so assigned to him is distinct from principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR. The linkage sought to be established between him and the alleged acts, primarily rests on disclosure statement of the co-accused and circumstantial inferences. The primary role so attributed to him is that of a HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29874-2026 (O&M) -4- facilitator, which is obviously distinct and remote offence from the direct commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the involvement of the petitioner in commission of subject offences has to be drawn. The material placed on record against the petitioner justifies his continued detention in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention 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 not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 9. 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) 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