CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 247 CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Daya Ram @ Dayaram ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Mandavi Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Tripathi, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0384 16.11.2023 Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC (325, 34 and 109 of IPC added later on) (148 and 149 of IPC deleted later on) MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Manjit alleging therein that in the evening of 16.11.2023, he along with his brother Amit was sowing wheat crop with a tractor in his fields and his other family members and friend Sachin were also present there when the present petitioner along with co- accused Hans Raj, Balkesh, Sushila, Nancy and Priyanka reached there on two motorbikes. They were armed with iron rods and opened an attack upon the complainant and his family members. The petitioner took out a revolver from the pocket of his pant and fired a shot towards the complainant with an intent to kill him. The complainant had a narrow escape but another fire was then shot on his friend Sachin. His mother, sister and maternal aunt sustained injuries in the occurrence. When the complainant along with his brother Amit were shifting his mother, sister and maternal aunt in his vehicle, accused Hans Ram made an exhortation that they were to be killed and then the petitioner fired a shot which hit the chest of Amit brother of the complainant. While proclaiming that they would kill the complainant also, they fled from the spot after damaging the window panes of his Cruiser vehicle. The injured Amit was rushed to hospital but was declared to be dead. By alleging that the relations between the petitioner and the co-accused as well as the complainant's MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) -3- family were inimical due to some land dispute, the assailants wanted to take possession of their land, he prayed for taking action against the culprits. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2023. Other assailants were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of more than two days and seven months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 prosecution witness has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India of personal liberty and release on bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record the custody certificate, it is argued by him that there are serious allegations against the petitioner as he was the principal assailant who had fired shot with a revolver on the person of the victim Amit thereby causing him fatal injury leading to his instantaneous death. He was also member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, voluntarily caused injuries to the other family members of the complainant. It is argued that taking into MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) -4- consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is further alleged to have caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. The shot fired by him upon the victim Amit led to his homicidal death. It is a case of direct evidence. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot 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 MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34274 of 2026 (O&M) -5- 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). 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, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh