CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 233-2 Matluf Khan State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 09.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita petitioner in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Section of BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 Station City Banga, District SBS Sagar. 2. on 17.11.2025, the complainant Maan was present at his shop Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal along with his associates was Phagwara in his that his brother Harpreet Singh honey was driving the car and when they reached near 20 car allegedly opened -13508-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Matluf Khan V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 09.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Sarvesh K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking petitioner in case bearing FIR No.122 dated 18.11.2025 offences punishable under Sections 103, 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3) of BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 City Banga, District SBS Sagar. The prosecution case, as set- on 17.11.2025, the complainant namely Maan was present at his shop. At about 03:00 PM, Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal along with his associates was Phagwara in his Scorpio car. It has been further alleged by the complainant that his brother Harpreet Singh honey was driving the car and when they reached near Ritha Ram School, some persons 20 car allegedly opened fire on his brother and i 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13508-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the seeking grant of regular bail to the 122 dated 18.11.2025, registered for the s 103, 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3), 351, 61 of BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police -out in the petition in hand, is that namely Pawandeep Singh alias Babbu At about 03:00 PM, his brother namely Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal along with his associates was going towards It has been further alleged by the complainant that his brother Harpreet Singh honey was driving the car and when they persons who were travelling in an i on his brother and in an attempt to escape, 483 of the grant of regular bail to the , registered for the , 351, 61 at Police , is that Babbu namely going towards It has been further alleged by the complainant that his brother Harpreet Singh honey was driving the car and when they travelling in an i- the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- brother drove the car towards the car of his brother got struck in traffic jam and the intercepted the vehicle and indiscriminately fired gunshots at its occupants. As a consequence of the firing, multiple persons su and two persons i.e., (brother of initially registered against Ajay Kumar and certain other accused as the persons who had actively participated in the attack. However, d course of were recorded an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side on 15.11.2025. has further surfaced that on 17.11.2025, accused Ajay Kumar had convened a meeting alongwith his associates at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where a conspiracy was allegedly hatched to attack Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal and Sahil Bholu. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner namely Matluf Khan was one of the person present in the s other co-accused, was entrusted the task of conducting surveillance upon the movements of the victims and conveying such information to the main accused. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused through DDR No.16 dated 27.11.2025. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that the petitioner no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned counsel -13508-2026 brother drove the car towards Banga Bus Stand area the car of his brother got struck in traffic jam and the intercepted the vehicle and indiscriminately fired gunshots at its occupants. As a consequence of the firing, multiple persons su and two persons i.e., Rimplejit Singh and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal (brother of FIR-complainant) succumbed to the initially registered against Ajay Kumar and certain other accused as the persons who had actively participated in the attack. However, d course of investigation, statements of the complaina were recorded and it has surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had been an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side on 15.11.2025. has further surfaced that on 17.11.2025, accused Ajay Kumar had convened ing alongwith his associates at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where a conspiracy was allegedly hatched to attack Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal and Sahil Bholu. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner namely Matluf Khan was one of the person present in the s accused, was entrusted the task of conducting surveillance upon the movements of the victims and conveying such information to the main accused. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, the ner came to be nominated as an accused through DDR No.16 dated 27.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that the petitioner no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned counsel 2 Banga Bus Stand area. Owing to heavy traffic, the car of his brother got struck in traffic jam and the assailants, thereafter intercepted the vehicle and indiscriminately fired gunshots at its occupants. As a consequence of the firing, multiple persons sustained firearm injuries and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal succumbed to their injuries. The FIR was initially registered against Ajay Kumar and certain other accused as the persons who had actively participated in the attack. However, during the investigation, statements of the complainant and injured witnesses surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had been an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side on 15.11.2025. has further surfaced that on 17.11.2025, accused Ajay Kumar had convened ing alongwith his associates at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where a conspiracy was allegedly hatched to attack Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal and Sahil Bholu. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner namely Matluf Khan was one of the person present in the said assembly and, along with accused, was entrusted the task of conducting surveillance upon the movements of the victims and conveying such information to the main accused. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, the ner came to be nominated as an accused through DDR No.16 dated for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned counsel has further wing to heavy traffic, thereafter, intercepted the vehicle and indiscriminately fired gunshots at its occupants. stained firearm injuries and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal The FIR was initially registered against Ajay Kumar and certain other accused as the the nt and injured witnesses surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had been an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side on 15.11.2025. It has further surfaced that on 17.11.2025, accused Ajay Kumar had convened ing alongwith his associates at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where a conspiracy was allegedly hatched to attack Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal and Sahil Bholu. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner namely Matluf aid assembly and, along with accused, was entrusted the task of conducting surveillance upon the movements of the victims and conveying such information to the main accused. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, the ner came to be nominated as an accused through DDR No.16 dated that the the FIR in question. Learned was not named in the FIR and has further AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- contended that the supplementary statement recorded after a considerable delay the prosecution version the petitioner is Learned counsel has further asserted that the the spot of occurrence and no recovery has been effected from him. been further to commit the alleged offence. the investigation before the the petitioner incarceration for a substantial period of time likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served Learned counsel has emphasized that the and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. petition in hand is entreated for. 4. grant of bail extremely grave in nature involving a pre death of two status report dated Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, learned State counsel has iterated that -13508-2026 contended that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded after a considerable delay e prosecution version highly doubtful. It the petitioner is a poor person and does Learned counsel has further asserted that the the spot of occurrence and no recovery has been effected from him. further contended that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that investigation has been completed and challan has already been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction petitioner is stated to be in custody since incarceration for a substantial period of time likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served from the continued incarceration of the petitioner Learned counsel has emphasized that the ere is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that extremely grave in nature involving a pre death of two persons and firearm injuries to several others. status report dated 25.04.2026 by way of an af Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, learned State counsel has iterated that during 3 petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded after a considerable delay which renders doubtful. It has been further contended that scrap work to earn his livelihood Learned counsel has further asserted that the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence and no recovery has been effected from him. It has that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner Learned counsel has further submitted that and challan has already been presented of jurisdiction. According to learned counsel, in custody since 30.11.2025 and has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of time. As the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful continued incarceration of the petitioner Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has clean antecedents ere is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of , learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the the petitioner by arguing that the offence in question is extremely grave in nature involving a pre-planned attack resulting in the and firearm injuries to several others. Referring to the by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, during the course of investigation the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of a renders that scrap work to earn his livelihood. present at has that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner Learned counsel has further submitted that and challan has already been presented According to learned counsel, and has undergone the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful continued incarceration of the petitioner. clean antecedents ere is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of opposed the offence in question is ulting in the Referring to the fidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, investigation the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material witnesses, which disclose his involvement in the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched against the complainant party. status report reads thus: -13508-2026 role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material nesses, which disclose his involvement in the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched against the complainant party. status report reads thus: “ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: 9. That the deponent humbly submits that the petitioner has specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as in the statements of other injured persons, and during the course of investigation, the petitioner also made a disclosure statement before the investigating officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner played an active and significant role in the commission of the offence, inasmuch as, on the asking of co-accused Ajay Kumar, the present petitioner Matluf Khan, along with other members of his group, assembled at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where they hatched a criminal conspiracy to quarrel with and attack the brother of the complainant and Sahil @ Bholu and in furtherance of the said conspiracy and pre conducted recce of Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal a accompanying him in a car, and thereafter conveyed the information regarding their movement and location to the main shooters, who subsequently fired upon Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and the persons accompanying him. True translated copy of s the complainant is annexed herewith as Annexure R3/T. ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONER: 10. That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of the record of the petitioner, it has been revealed that apart from the present FI 122 (supra), the petitioner is also found to be involved in following another criminal case: Sr. No. Detail of the case/FIR 1. FIR No. 72 dated 22.08.2019, under Section 18 of NDPS Act, PS City Banga. 11. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with other 4 role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material nesses, which disclose his involvement in the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched against the complainant party. The relevant part of the 9. That the deponent humbly submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as in the statements of other injured persons, and during the course of investigation, the petitioner also made a disclosure statement before further submitted that the petitioner played an active and significant role in the commission of the offence, inasmuch accused Ajay Kumar, the present petitioner Matluf Khan, along with other members of his group, assembled at hmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where they hatched a criminal conspiracy to quarrel with and attack the brother of the complainant and Sahil @ Bholu conspiracy and pre-plan, the petitioner conducted recce of Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and the persons accompanying him in a car, and thereafter conveyed the information regarding their movement and location to the main shooters, who subsequently fired upon Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and the persons accompanying him. True translated copy of supplementary statement of the complainant is annexed herewith as Annexure R3/T. ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONER: 10. That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of the record of the petitioner, it has been revealed that apart from the present FIR No. 122 (supra), the petitioner is also found to be involved in following Status of the case/FIR FIR No. 72 dated 22.08.2019, under Act, PS City Convicted 27.01.2022 11. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with other role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material nesses, which disclose his involvement in the criminal conspiracy The relevant part of the been specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as in the statements of other injured persons, and during the course of investigation, the petitioner also made a disclosure statement before further submitted that the petitioner played an active and significant role in the commission of the offence, inasmuch accused Ajay Kumar, the present petitioner- Matluf Khan, along with other members of his group, assembled at hmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where they hatched a criminal conspiracy to quarrel with and attack the brother of the complainant and Sahil @ Bholu plan, the petitioner nd the persons accompanying him in a car, and thereafter conveyed the information regarding their movement and location to the main shooters, who subsequently fired upon Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and the persons upplementary statement of 10. That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of the record R No. 122 (supra), the petitioner is also found to be involved in following Status of the case/FIR on 11. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with other AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- State counsel has submitted that i there is a strong likelihood that if released on bail, the influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same locality and thereby hamper the trial. allegations, the gravity of the offence and the stage of trial learned State counsel prays 5. perused the available record. 6. Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a ju principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a ba evaluate factors such as the existence of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The -13508-2026 accused persons, prepared a plan and then facilitated to execute the criminal plan hatched by accused Ajay Kumar. The accused Ajay Kumar and other assailants opened fire in a public place, resulting in the death of two youths. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, the main shooters are yet to be arrested, and the weapons used in the offe yet to be recovered. It is further submitted that the of the prosecution are yet to be examined. It is a settled principle of law that a fair trial requires that the complainant and other witnesses depose in a free and fearless atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave and reasonable apprehension that, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may attempt to overawe or influence the complainant and other prosecution witnesses or tamper w evidence collected by the investigating agency. Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the offence, there is a strong likelihood that if released on bail, the influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same locality and thereby hamper the trial. allegations, the gravity of the offence and the stage of trial learned State counsel prays for the dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a ju principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a ba evaluate factors such as the existence of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The 5 accused persons, prepared a plan and then facilitated to execute the accused Ajay Kumar. The accused Ajay Kumar and other assailants opened fire in a public place, resulting in the death of two youths. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, the main shooters are yet to be arrested, and the weapons used in the offence are yet to be recovered. It is further submitted that the material/star witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined. It is a settled principle of law that a fair trial requires that the complainant and other witnesses depose ess atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave and reasonable apprehension that, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may attempt to overawe or influence the complainant and other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating agency.” Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned n view of the seriousness of the offence, there is a strong likelihood that if released on bail, the petitioner may influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same locality and thereby hamper the trial. In view of the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence and the stage of trial learned State dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the accused persons, prepared a plan and then facilitated to execute the accused Ajay Kumar. The accused Ajay Kumar and other assailants opened fire in a public place, resulting in the death of two youths. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, the main nce are material/star witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined. It is a settled principle of law that a fair trial requires that the complainant and other witnesses depose ess atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave and reasonable apprehension that, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may attempt to overawe or influence ith the Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned n view of the seriousness of the offence, petitioner may influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same In view of the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence and the stage of trial learned State I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the dicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and ourt must evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of ourt must also assess the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial r Court must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State thr Court 3490, -13508-2026 likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial r ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under: 14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001( (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a 6 likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ough C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme relevant whereof reads as under: It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, tanding of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The its discretion in a judicious manner and course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing ole. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , 2005 AIR Supreme It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) released on bail; (v) character, tanding of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by 2) RCR Gurcharan Singh v. State ). While a vague witnesses may not mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the refused. We may also refer to the following Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The its discretion in a judicious manner and course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed elaborate documentation of the merit of the ders AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -13508-2026 reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was where the accused is charged of having committed a order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non also necessary for the court granting bail to consider circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338." This Court also in specific terms held that : "the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned ord that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, accused has undergone certain period of case) by itself would not entitle the a the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offe severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, observed : “The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get clutches of the same indulge in various 7 reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is urt granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of the nature of supporting evidence. apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension court in support of the charge. (see Ram Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : ran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 Court also in specific terms held that : "the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed has given the period of incarceration already undergone the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the offences punishable with life imprisonment or in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the during the period he was on bail." Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial justice being done to the society by preventing the accused the bail order from tampering with the evidence in requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with being granted particularly serious offence. Any application of mind. Any application of mind. It is among other a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension Ram Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : ran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 "the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting er it is noticed has given the period of incarceration already undergone the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the offences punishable with life imprisonment or our opinion, the mere fact that the incarceration (three years in this being enlarged on bail, nor near future either by sufficient for nce alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 this Court The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial justice being done to the society by preventing the accused the bail order from tampering with the evidence in requires to be stated that once a person is where the punishment is quite away from the the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. the material collected d occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed by a group of armed assailants party and opened indiscriminate fire in a public are death of two and manner of the offence, at this stage, reflect a grave and heinous crime Though the petitioner was not named in the FIR subsequent n ground. The material collected during that the petitioner after conducting the Bal and his associates facilitated the execution of the attack. Though the petitioner was not present at the spot when the firing took place has reflected ultimately led to the commission of the offence. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial; however, at the stage of consideration of bail, evidentiary value of such material but only to see whether a is made out. 8. from the petitioner allegations leveled clearly indicate his -13508-2026 prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation. The factual matrix of the case the material collected during the course of investigation occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed a group of armed assailants who chased the vehicle of the complainant party and opened indiscriminate fire in a public are two individuals and serious firearm injuries to others. and manner of the offence, at this stage, reflect a grave and heinous crime Though the petitioner was not named in the FIR subsequent nomination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that ground. The material collected during the course of the petitioner after conducting the recce his associates has passed the information to the facilitated the execution of the attack. Though the petitioner was not present at the spot when the firing took place but has reflected that the petitioner was a ultimately led to the commission of the offence. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial; however, at the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to meticulously exami evidentiary value of such material but only to see whether a is made out. The plea of the petitioner that from the petitioner also does not persuade this Court allegations leveled against the petitioner indicate his participation in the commission of the 8 prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased and also create problems of law and order situation.” of the case, as emerging from the FIR and uring the course of investigation, reflects that the occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed chased the vehicle of the complainant party and opened indiscriminate fire in a public area which resulted in the and serious firearm injuries to others. The nature and manner of the offence, at this stage, reflect a grave and heinous crime Though the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question but omination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that the course of investigation indicates recce of Harpreet Singh alias Honey formation to the main accused which facilitated the execution of the attack. Though the petitioner was not present but the investigation conducted so far part of the chain of events that ultimately led to the commission of the offence. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial; however, at the stage of this Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidentiary value of such material but only to see whether a prima facie case plea of the petitioner that no recovery has been effected also does not persuade this Court at this stage. The petitioner are grave and specific which participation in the commission of the crime. T prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased and that the occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed chased the vehicle of the complainant in the The nature and manner of the offence, at this stage, reflect a grave and heinous crime. his omination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that investigation indicates Harpreet Singh alias Honey main accused which facilitated the execution of the attack. Though the petitioner was not present conducted so far part of the chain of events that ultimately led to the commission of the offence. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial; however, at the stage of ne the case no recovery has been effected The which The AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- occurrence to several others magnitude and seriousness discretionary relief of bail. which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising discretion under Sect Court, at this stage, may prima facie to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity o evidence on record. strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but m also embolden the accused State that the petitioner may influence the witnesses, who belong to the same locality, also cannot be said to be unfounded accusations, the nature of the to have been committed are relevant considerations while adjudicating a prayer for 9. petitioner during investigation and case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 10. (i) dismissed. -13508-2026 occurrence in question has resulted in the death of two to several others. In the considered opinion of this Co magnitude and seriousness of the crime discretionary relief of bail. The gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising discretion under Section 483 of BNSS. In the considered opinion of this at this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been made which prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity o evidence on record. It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but m also embolden the accused. Furthermore, State that the petitioner may influence the witnesses, who belong to the same locality, also cannot be said to be unfounded accusations, the nature of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed are relevant considerations while adjudicating a prayer for grant of regular bail. In view of the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner during investigation and the overall facts and circumstances of the this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The present petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 9 resulted in the death of two persons and injuries In the considered opinion of this Court, the very of the crime disentitle the petitioner to the The gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising ion 483 of BNSS. In the considered opinion of this no accentuating circumstances have been made which constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but m , the apprehension expressed by the State that the petitioner may influence the witnesses, who belong to the same locality, also cannot be said to be unfounded. The seriousness of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed are relevant considerations while adjudicating a nature of allegations, the role attributed to the the overall facts and circumstances of the this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: is devoid of merits and is hereby s and injuries very disentitle the petitioner to the The gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising ion 483 of BNSS. In the considered opinion of this no accentuating circumstances have been made which constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail f the allegations and the It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may apprehension expressed by the State that the petitioner may influence the witnesses, who belong to the The seriousness of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed are relevant considerations while adjudicating a nature of allegations, the role attributed to the the overall facts and circumstances of the this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled is devoid of merits and is hereby AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (ii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the being influenced with this order. (iii) July 09, 202 Ajay -13508-2026 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency further, in accordance with law, without Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove the investigating agency without AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document