CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH __ CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 Lachman Singh @ Laxman @ Pinda ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.524 dated 29.10.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 190(1) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 28.10.2024 at about 6:30/7:00 p.m., Rajender Singh and his son Karanveer Singh alias Mani were present at their house when a tractor-trolley loaded with stubble passed near their residence. On being asked by his son to check whether the trolley might damage the electricity pole, Rajender Singh went towards the main gate, followed by Karanveer Singh. Shortly thereafter, gunshots were heard. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) -2- Rajender Singh rushed back inside the house in an injured condition and informed her wife Ramanpreet Kaur/complainant that Shampy Singh and Kuldeep Singh Bhau had fired at him. The complainant then reached the gate and saw Shampy Singh, armed with a pistol, sitting on the pillion seat of a motorcycle, while Kuldeep Singh Bhau, who was driving the motorcycle, exhorted him to shoot Karanveer Singh alias Mani as well, whereupon Shampy Singh fired 3-4 shots at Karanveer Singh, causing him to fall on the ground. It was further alleged that on seeing people gathering at the spot, the assailants abandoned the motorcycle and fled in a waiting car along with 5-6 other unknown persons. Rajender Singh and Karanveer Singh were initially taken to the Civil Hospital, Dabwali, thereafter referred to Civil Hospital, Sirsa and subsequently shifted to AIIMS, Bathinda, where Karanveer Singh was declared dead, while Rajender Singh continued to undergo treatment for firearm injuries. The motive alleged in the FIR is previous enmity arising out of quarrels that had taken place between the deceased and accused Shampy Singh about two to three months prior to the occurrence. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. No specific injury or overt act has been attributed to him and the allegations in the FIR are primarily against co-accused Shampy Singh and Kuldeep Singh Bhau, who are alleged to have fired the fatal shots. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that he has merely been implicated because the motorcycle allegedly used in the occurrence belonged to him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is only about 20 years of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) -3- age, has clean antecedents and has remained in custody since 04.11.2024. It is argued that the investigation stands concluded, challan has already been presented, charges have been framed and the trial is progressing at a slow pace as only one prosecution witness has been examined so far out of total twenty one witnesses. It is also submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded immediately after the occurrence do not disclose the presence or role of the petitioner and there is no material to establish any motive or direct participation on his part. Continued detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful purpose in the given circumstances. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, on the strength of status report which is available on record, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence involving murder committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. It is argued that during investigation the complainant specifically nominated the petitioner in her supplementary statement by alleging that he was driving the motorcycle carrying the armed assailants at the time of the occurrence. Learned State counsel further submits that the motorcycle abandoned at the place of occurrence is registered in the name of the petitioner and the investigation has revealed his active participation in the conspiracy. It is submitted that after his arrest, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement and also got the place of occurrence demarcated in furtherance of the investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the co-accused have also disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in planning and executing the crime. Trial may be expedited. There are chances of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) -4- petitioner’s intimidating the material witnesses, if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. However, during the course of investigation, he came to be nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant with a specific allegation that he was driving the motorcycle carrying the armed assailants at the time of the occurrence. The investigation further reveals that the motorcycle abandoned at the place of occurrence is registered in the name of the petitioner. Besides this, the investigating agency has collected material suggesting his active participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy and the co-accused have also disclosed his involvement in the commission of the offence. At this stage, this Court refrains from making any detailed comments on the evidentiary value of the material collected, lest it causes prejudice to either side during trial. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he, along with the co-accused, stands accused of having committed a heinous offence punishable with capital punishment or imprisonment for life. Though the petitioner has remained in custody since 04.11.2024 and only one prosecution witness has been examined till date, however, mere length of incarceration cannot be a determinative factor for grant of bail in a case involving allegations of murder and criminal conspiracy. The gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner are factors which cannot be ignored while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS. It is a well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief and each case MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16528-2026 (O&M) -5- has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. While considering a prayer for regular bail, the Court is required to keep in view the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of punishment in the event of conviction, the nature of evidence collected during investigation, the prima facie involvement of the accused and the likelihood of his influencing witnesses or otherwise interfering with the administration of justice. At this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence, but only to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case exists and whether the larger interests of justice warrant release of the accused on bail. 7. In the present case, the prosecution has cited a number of witnesses and the complainant as well as other material witnesses are yet to enter the witness box. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there exists a genuine apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may influence the unexamined witnesses or otherwise impede the fair progress of the trial. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution, therefore, cannot be said to be unfounded. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage. Consequently, the present 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. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document