CRM-M-22880-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CRM-M-22880-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2026 Akshay ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ajay Kripal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 193 dated 16.12.2024, registered under Sections 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 238(A), 304 and 3(5) of BNS added later on) at Police Station GRP Hisar, District GRP Ambala Cantt., Haryana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Dinesh alleging therein that on the night of 15.12.2024, his elder brother Satbir had gone to some grocery shop to buy something but did not return. The complainant started making search for him and then came to know that some unknown persons had injured his brother by stabbing him. He rushed to the informed place and saw his brother in a critical condition. The victim was rushed to the hospital but MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22880-2026 (O&M) -2- succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. By alleging that some unknown persons had murdered his brother, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem of the dead body of the victim was conducted. During the course of investigation, the crime scene was inspected and Aadhar Card of the petitioner was found lying thereon. The petitioner along with co- accused Sunny was apprehended on 16.12.2024. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, co-accused Sunny firstly suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the subject crime and also named the present petitioner, who too suffered disclosure statement to the same effect and got recovered the clothing worn by him at the time of commission of crime. He also got recovered mobile phone of the deceased. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The Aadhar Card, belonging to him, has also been planted at the place of occurrence to link him with the offence of murder of the victim. There is no eye-witness to the subject crime. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to link him with the subject crime. PW-4 Dinesh and PW-5 Mukesh have turned hostile. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.12.2024. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time as only 10 out of total 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His further MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22880-2026 (O&M) -3- incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Status report and the custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed by the respondent-State. In terms of the same, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The Aadhar Card of the petitioner was recovered from the place of occurrence. The mobile phone of the deceased was also recovered at his instance. There is sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the subject crime. The trial is going on at a proper pace and most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have caused homicidal death of the victim. As per the allegations, at the time of occurrence, the petitioner had caught hold of the victim, whereas co-accused had stabbed him, with a knife. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of offence of murder against the petitioner. The trial is going on at a proper pace. As per the custody certificate, the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. The allegations against him are serious in nature as he along with the co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22880-2026 (O&M) -4- overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence. 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 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 complainant 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. In light of the foregoing legal principles, this Court finds no compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. 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. 08.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document