CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 233-1 Ram Lubhaya 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 and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 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 bro reached near 20 car allegedly opened -3703-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Lubhaya 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. Sarju Puri, Senior Advocate Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advoate 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.0122 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 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-3703-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate with Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advoate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of seeking grant of regular bail to the 0122 dated 18.11.2025, registered for the s 103, 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3) of BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City -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 ther 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, the grant of regular bail to the , registered for the s 103, 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3) of BNS City , is that Babbu namely going towards It has been further alleged by the complainant ther 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 sustained firearm i and two persons i.e., (brother of FIR initially named Ajay Kumar son of the present petitioner and certain other accused persons as active part course of were recorded an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side o investigation further Ajay Kumar and other associates, had allegedly participated in wherein the conspiracy to attack the complainant party was allegedly hatched. Conseq came to be nominated as an accused in the present case. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that the petitioner no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned further contended that the of a supplementary sta renders the prosecution version contended antecedents and has no criminal history. -3703-2026 brother drove the car towards Banga Bus Stand a 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 sustained firearm i and two persons i.e., Rimplejit Singh and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal (brother of FIR-complainant) succumbed to the initially named Ajay Kumar son of the present petitioner and certain other accused persons as active participants in the attack. course of investigation, statements of the complainant and injured witnesses were recorded and it had surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had been an altercation between Sahil Bholu and the accused side o investigation further reflect that the present petitioner, along with his son Ajay Kumar and other associates, had allegedly participated in wherein the conspiracy to attack the complainant party was allegedly hatched. Consequently, vide DDR No.16 dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused in the present case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned further contended that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded after a considerable delay renders the prosecution version highly contended that the petitioner is a 66-year antecedents and has no criminal history. 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 injuri and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal succumbed to their injuries. The FIR had initially named Ajay Kumar son of the present petitioner and certain other icipants 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. The that the present petitioner, along with his son Ajay Kumar and other associates, had allegedly participated in the meetings wherein the conspiracy to attack the complainant party was allegedly uently, vide DDR No.16 dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused in the present case. for the petitioner has iterated that the the FIR in question. Learned seni counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no overt act has been attributed to him therein. Learned senior counsel has petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis tement recorded after a considerable delay which highly doubtful. It has been further year-old senior citizen having clean antecedents and has no criminal history. Learned senior counsel has wing to heavy traffic, thereafter, intercepted the vehicle and indiscriminately fired gunshots at its occupants. njuries and Harpreet Singh alias Honey Bal had initially named Ajay Kumar son of the present petitioner and certain other the investigation, statements of the complainant and injured witnesses surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had been n 15.11.2025. The that the present petitioner, along with his son meetings wherein the conspiracy to attack the complainant party was allegedly uently, vide DDR No.16 dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner that the senior was not named in the FIR and has petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis which further old senior citizen having clean has AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- emphasized that the abroad and, after returning to India, has been engaged in social and religious activities in his village. petitioner was never present at the spot of occurrence and no recovery has been effected from him. Learned petitioner has been implicated only because he is the father of the accused namely motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. senior counsel has further submitted that the completed Court of jurisdiction stated to be a substantial period of time considerable amount of time served from counsel has emphasized that the no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. 4. grant of bail extremely grav death of two status report dated 13.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Divis -3703-2026 emphasized that the petitioner has spent more than two decades working abroad and, after returning to India, has been engaged in social and religious activities in his village. Learned senior counsel has further asserted that the petitioner was never present at the spot of occurrence and no recovery has been effected from him. Learned senior petitioner has been implicated only because he is the father of the namely Ajay Kumar. It has been motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. counsel has further submitted that the d and challan has already been presented before the of jurisdiction. According to learned stated to be in custody since 27.11.2025 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 purpose would be from continued incarceration of the petitioner counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution 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 13.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Divis 3 spent more than two decades working abroad and, after returning to India, has been engaged in social and religious counsel has further asserted that the petitioner was never present at the spot of occurrence and no recovery has senior counsel also contends that the petitioner has been implicated only because he is the father of the main has been further contended that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the investigation has been and challan has already been presented before the competent According to learned senior counsel, the petitioner and has undergone incarceration for the conclusion of trial is likely to take a and, therefore, no useful purpose would be continued incarceration of the petitioner. Learned senior petitioner has clean antecedents and there 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 , learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the to the petitioner by arguing that the offence in question is e in nature involving a pre-planned attack resulting in the and firearm injuries to several others. Referring to the status report dated 13.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, spent more than two decades working abroad and, after returning to India, has been engaged in social and religious counsel has further asserted that the petitioner was never present at the spot of occurrence and no recovery has counsel also contends that the main that there is no Learned has been competent petitioner is and has undergone incarceration for the conclusion of trial is likely to take a and, therefore, no useful purpose would be senior and there is evidence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is opposed the offence in question is ck resulting in the Referring to the status report dated 13.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, ion Banga, District SBS Nagar, AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- learned State counsel has iterated that role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material witnesses, whi allegedly hatched against the complainant party. status report reads thus: -3703-2026 learned State counsel has iterated that during role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material witnesses, which disclose his involvement dly hatched against the complainant party. status report reads thus: “10. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER That the deponent humbly submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant the statements of other injured persons. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that on 15.11.2025, an altercation took place between the injured Sahil @ Bholu and accused Saurav Kumar son of Balwinder Kumar regarding collis accused Ajay Kumar and his father, namely Ram Lubhaya (present petitioner), extended threats to the injured Sahil @ Bholu. It was further revealed during investigation that on the next day, i.e., 16.11.2025, the injured Sahil @ Bholu and the brother of the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal, along with other accused persons, gathered at the bus stand for a compromise. The injured Sahil @ Bholu was asked to tender an apology, but he refused to do so. Thereupon, a the accused, including the present petitioner/Ram Lubhaya in connivance with each other, hatched a criminal conspiracy to attack Harpreet Singh (brother of the complainant) and Sahil @ Bholu. During the course of investigation, the petitioner also made investigating officer, wherein he disclosed that on 17.11.2025, his son Ajay Kumar called the other members of his group at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, and planned an attack on Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and Sahil @ Bholu. Thereafter, Ajay Kumar (main shooter) along with his accomplices proceeded towards the shop of the complainant in a car bearing registration No. PB-32-AA with accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi went in another car bearing registration No. PB-32-B-0582. The petitioner further disclosed that at the instance of his son Ajay Kumar and his accomplices, he, along with Charanjit Singh @ Channi, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Shubham Sharma, and Matloof Khan, conducted recce of Harpreet Singh others in the area of Mukandpur Road, Banga. 11. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF PETITIONER: 4 during the course of investigation the role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material ch disclose his involvement in the criminal conspiracy dly hatched against the complainant party. The relevant part of the ROLE OF THE PETITIONER 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. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that on 15.11.2025, an altercation took place between the injured Sahil @ Bholu and accused Saurav Kumar son of Balwinder Kumar regarding collision of a scooty. On the same day, accused Ajay Kumar and his father, namely Ram Lubhaya (present petitioner), extended threats to the injured Sahil @ Bholu. It was further revealed during investigation that on the next day, i.e., 16.11.2025, the hil @ Bholu and the brother of the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal, along with other accused persons, gathered at the bus stand for a compromise. The injured Sahil @ Bholu was asked to tender an apology, but he refused to do so. Thereupon, a the accused, including the present petitioner/Ram Lubhaya in connivance with each other, hatched a criminal conspiracy to attack Harpreet Singh (brother of the complainant) and Sahil @ Bholu. During the course of investigation, the petitioner also made a disclosure statement before the investigating officer, wherein he disclosed that on 17.11.2025, his son Ajay Kumar called the other members of his group at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, and planned an attack on Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and Sahil reafter, Ajay Kumar (main shooter) along with his accomplices proceeded towards the shop of the complainant in a car -AA-7878, whereas the petitioner along with accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi went in another car bearing 0582. The petitioner further disclosed that at the instance of his son Ajay Kumar and his accomplices, he, along with Charanjit Singh @ Channi, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Shubham Sharma, and Matloof Khan, conducted recce of Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and others in the area of Mukandpur Road, Banga. 11. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF PETITIONER: investigation the role of the petitioner has surfaced through the statements of material in the criminal conspiracy The relevant part of the That the deponent humbly submits that the petitioner has been specifically as well as in the statements of other injured persons. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that on 15.11.2025, an altercation took place between the injured Sahil @ Bholu and accused Saurav Kumar son ion of a scooty. On the same day, accused Ajay Kumar and his father, namely Ram Lubhaya (present petitioner), extended threats to the injured Sahil @ Bholu. It was further revealed during investigation that on the next day, i.e., 16.11.2025, the hil @ Bholu and the brother of the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal, along with other accused persons, gathered at the bus stand for a compromise. The injured Sahil @ Bholu was asked to tender an apology, but he refused to do so. Thereupon, all the accused, including the present petitioner/Ram Lubhaya in connivance with each other, hatched a criminal conspiracy to attack Harpreet Singh (brother of the complainant) and Sahil @ Bholu. During the course of a disclosure statement before the investigating officer, wherein he disclosed that on 17.11.2025, his son Ajay Kumar called the other members of his group at Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, and planned an attack on Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and Sahil reafter, Ajay Kumar (main shooter) along with his accomplices proceeded towards the shop of the complainant in a car 7878, whereas the petitioner along with accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi went in another car bearing 0582. The petitioner further disclosed that at the instance of his son Ajay Kumar and his accomplices, he, along with Charanjit Singh @ Channi, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Shubham Sharma, @ Honey Bal and 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 petitioner may influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same locality and thereby hamper the trial. allegations, the gravity of the offence a counsel prays 5. perused the available record. 6. Court; 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 ba evaluate factors such as the exi -3703-2026 That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of record of the petitioner, it has been revealed that except the present FIR No. 122 (supra), the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 12. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with his son and other accused persons, prepared a plan and t execute the criminal plan hatched by his son Ajay Kumar. The son of the petitioner and his accomplices 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 c witnesses depose in a free and fearless atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave and reasonable apprehension that, in 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 State counsel has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the offence, here 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. 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 judicious and 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 5 That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of record of the petitioner, it has been revealed that except the present FIR No. 122 petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 12. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with his son and other accused persons, prepared a plan and then facilitated to execute the criminal plan hatched by his son Ajay Kumar. The son of the petitioner and his accomplices opened fire in a public place, resulting in the death of two youths. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, the 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 in a free and fearless atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave and reasonable apprehension that, in event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may attempt to overawe e 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, here 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 nd the stage of trial learned State for the 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 stence of prima facie evidence implicating That the deponent humbly submits from the verification of record of the petitioner, it has been revealed that except the present FIR No. 122 12. That the deponent humbly submits that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with his hen facilitated to execute the criminal plan hatched by his son Ajay Kumar. The son of the petitioner and his accomplices opened fire in a public place, resulting in the death of two youths. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, the 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 omplainant and other witnesses depose in a free and fearless atmosphere, without any threat or the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may attempt to overawe e complainant and other prosecution witnesses or tamper Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned n view of the seriousness of the offence, here is a strong likelihood that if released on bail, the petitioner may influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same In view of the nature of the nd 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 ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and ourt must evidence implicating AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of 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 acc 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 Cour titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Court 3490, -3703-2026 the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of 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 role. Furthermore, the 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 Cour 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 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(2) RCR (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 is of such character that his 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 ma 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 6 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 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 used 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 Cour State through 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, haviour, means, position and standing 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 ngh 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 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 bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of ourt must also assess the 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 used play a crucial role. 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 reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) released on bail; (v) character, haviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by ngh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(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 y 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 bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -3703-2026 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 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 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 order it is noticed 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 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 accused to 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 whe 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) 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 the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases 7 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 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 court 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. b. Reasonable 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) 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran 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 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 f 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 course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed elaborate documentation of the merit of the need to indicate in such orders being granted particularly serious offence. Any application of mind. It is among other a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension Ram Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 "the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting 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 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 n the gravity of the offence 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 evidence in requires to be stated that once a person is where the punishment is quite AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. the material collected during the course of investigation occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed by a group of armed assailants party and opened indisc 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 nomination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that ground. The material collected during that the petitioner has been attributed a role in the events occurrence. Th with his son Ajay Kumar, had threatened Sahil Bholu further reflected ultimately led to the commission of the off 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. was not present at the scene of occurrence also does not persuade this Court at this stage -3703-2026 stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with 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 area death of 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 that the petitioner has been attributed a role in the events occurrence. The prosecution case is that on 15.11.2025 the petitioner, along with his son Ajay Kumar, had threatened Sahil Bholu further reflected that the petitioner was part of the chain of events that ultimately led to the commission of the off 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 examine the evidentiary value of such material but only to see whether a is made out. The plea of the petitioner that was not present at the scene of occurrence also does not persuade this Court at this stage. The allegations leveled against the 8 stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the e in various activities like tampering with 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 the material collected during the course of investigation, reflects that the occurrence in question is a broad daylight firing incident allegedly executed chased the vehicle of the complainant riminate 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 subsequent nomination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that the course of investigation indicates that the petitioner has been attributed a role in the events prior to e prosecution case is that on 15.11.2025 the petitioner, along with his son Ajay Kumar, had threatened Sahil Bholu. The investigation has that the petitioner was 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 petitioner is a senior citizen and was not present at the scene of occurrence also does not persuade this Court The allegations leveled against the petitioner are grave and away from the the 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 subsequent nomination cannot be brushed aside at this stage merely on that investigation indicates the e prosecution case is that on 15.11.2025 the petitioner, along has that the petitioner was part of the chain of events that ence. 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 case petitioner is a senior citizen and was not present at the scene of occurrence also does not persuade this Court are grave and AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- specific wh the crime persons and injuries to several Court, the petitioner to the discretionary relief of bail. the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising discretion under Section 483 of BNSS. In the considered opin of this Court, which may regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on r 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 also embolden the accused 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 and the manner in which it i considerations while adjudicating a prayer for 9. the role attributed to the petitioner during investigation and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 10. -3703-2026 which clearly indicate his active participation in the commission of crime. The occurrence in question has s and injuries to several victims. the very magnitude and seriousness petitioner to the discretionary relief of bail. the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while exercising discretion under Section 483 of BNSS. In the considered opin of this Court, at this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been made may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the 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 may also embolden the accused 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 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 In view of the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner during investigation and circumstances of the case, 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: 9 active participation in the commission of in question has resulted in the death of two In the considered opinion of this very magnitude and seriousness of the crime disentitles petitioner to the 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 no accentuating circumstances have been made constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of 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 also embolden the accused. Furthermore, 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 The seriousness of the accusations, the nature of the offence s alleged to have been committed are relevant considerations while adjudicating a prayer for grant of regular bail. gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner during investigation, and the overall facts 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: active participation in the commission of resulted in the death of two In the considered opinion of this the The gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed are relevant considerations while ion no accentuating circumstances have been made constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of 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 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 The seriousness of the accusations, the nature of the offence, s alleged to have been committed are relevant gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, erall facts this Court is of the considered opinion that AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (i) dismissed. (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 -3703-2026 The present petition is devo dismissed. 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 The present petition is devoid of merits and is hereby 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 id of merits and is hereby Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove the investigating agency out AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document