CRM-M-8605-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-8605-2026 Decided on :09.07.2026 Nitesh @ Dhandhu . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate of the petitioner. Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 216 dated 07.05.2019, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 120-B of the IPC (now corresponding to Sections 191(3), 190, 103 and 61(2) of the BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. 2. Occurrence in question took place at about 10:20 a.m. on 07.05.2019. Complainant got the FIR registered, wherein the allegations read as under: “ That I am resident of above mentioned address. We are two brothers and two sisters and all the four are married. My younger brother Pramod alias Pawan used to RASHMI 2026.07.09 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8605-2026 2 work in Sapla Water Supply on DC rate. On 07.05.19 at about 9 a.m. and he left home for Atyal on duty. I also work in Water Supply Sampla. At about 10.20 am I received information that my younger brother Pramod alias Pawan has been shot at, on which I informed my home and reached near the farm of Ismaila wale on Giji road, where I saw that my younger brother Pramod was lying dead on the cut kutcha road in the farm of Ismaila wale, a lot of blood was oozing. My father also reached the spot. There is a dispute regarding our residential house in Khedi Sampla with Gindodi wife of late Balbir r/o Khedi Sampla and Kali alias Poonam D/O Balbir and a civil suit and criminal case are pending in this regard in Rohtak Court. About 3 months ago Gallu alias Praveen S/O Balbir alias Randhir, Ajay son of Indra resident of Khedi Sampla came to our house and threatened us that either vacate this plot or we will shoot you and take you away in a sack- Today on 7.5.19 Gallu alias Praveen and Ajay son of Indra killed my brother Pramod alias Pawan aged 32 years while he was going to duty on Giji road either by shooting themselves or getting someone to shoot him. Legal action should be taken against them SD-VINOD ATTESTED KARAN SINGH PS SAMPLARTK DT 07.05.19.” 3. From the allegations levelled by the prosecution, it transpires that the deceased, Pramod alias Pawan, was shot dead by unknown assailants. At the time of registration of the FIR, the complainant named only two persons, namely, (i) Gallu @ Praveen and (ii) Ajay, merely on the basis of suspicion arising from the previous dispute and the threats allegedly extended by them on the same morning. RASHMI 2026.07.09 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8605-2026 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the course of investigation, statement of an alleged eye-witness, namely, Krishan, was recorded. However, while appearing before the trial Court on 30.01.2025, said witness did not attribute any role to the present petitioner. As PW-1-Krishan identified only accused, namely, (i) Lakshay son of Vinod, (ii) Ibrahim son of Abkar, (iii) Vishal son of Rohtash, and one Naveen as the persons present at the spot, though he had not known their names earlier. During his examination-in-chief, PW- 1 specifically deposed that accused Nitesh and Lakshay @ Cheenu were not present at the place of occurrence and, therefore, he failed to identify them. On the strength of the aforesaid deposition, learned counsel submits that the prosecution's star witness has already been examined and neither he identified the petitioner nor assigned any role to him. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused Lakshay @ Chinu has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-26892-2025 (Annexure P-6). Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is involved in a serious offence. It is argued that the witness may have been won over and, therefore, deliberately did not name the petitioner while deposing before the trial Court. RASHMI 2026.07.09 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8605-2026 4 However, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a period of last 7 years and 4 days. He, however, submits that petitioner is involved in 15 other criminal cases, out of which he has already been convicted in four cases, while the remaining cases are still pending trial. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book. 7. Be that as it may, material eye-witness has already been examined and has not attributed any role to the petitioner. Petitioner has remained incarcerated for more than seven years and cannot be detained for an indefinite period pending conclusion of the trial. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused namely Lakshay @ cheenu has already been granted the concession of regular bail. It is also pertinent to notice the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was about 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence RASHMI 2026.07.09 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8605-2026 5 available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 9. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 09.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.09 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document