CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 304 CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Baljinder Singh @ Mangu ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Vaishali Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR No.376, Dated 14.06.2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2), 111(2), 111(3), 111(5), 238 and 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Prince alleging that he was working as a driver with the liquor contractor Shantanu from the last one month. On the evening of 13.06.2025, he along with Aniket, another HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) -2- employee of the liquor vend and Shantanu was going towards Shahbad. He had stopped his vehicle at Meena Market, Shahbad on asking of Shantanu. The latter had alighted from the vehicle and was proceeding towards a shop to buy cigarette, when suddenly two youths reached from behind, on a motorbike and one of them started firing shots upon him. Seeing them, the complainant hit both of them with his vehicle due to which the assailants also sustained injuries and fled while leaving their motorbike at the spot. The injured Shantanu was rushed to hospital who succumbed to the injuries and died. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. As per the further allegations, on 14.06.2025, a post was posted on Instagram App of one Noni Rana gang thereby claiming responsibility of murder of the victim Shantanu. The names of Lawrence Bishnoi, Jitender Maan, Rajan Jaat, Noni Rana and Kala Rana were also written on the said post. The accused Rajan Jaat, who was in custody in some other case was joined into investigation of this case and suffered disclosure statement. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as accused. It transpired that co-accused Dharambir Singh, who was a liquor contractor for the last 7-8 years and was managing the affairs of his liquor business through the petitioner. The petitioner had came into contact with co-accused Shubham Khurana and gangster Noni Rana. Accused Noni Rana in lieu of giving detailed information regarding the victim, had offered 10-20% share in liquor contract without any financial assistance to the petitioner and co-accused and by accepting that offer, the petitioner had agreed to provide HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) -3- information regarding the victim. He supplied information relating to the liquor contract interests, routine movements of victim Shantanu to co- accused Shubham Khurana and had even provided his photograph. At the instance of accused Noni Rana and Dharambir Singh, he conducted recce of the victim on multiple occasions. It was also revealed that on 13.06.2025, he had accompanied accused Shubham Khurana in a Bolero vehicle of accused Dharambir to conduct recce of the victim, thereby actively participating in the occurrence. The location of his phone was also found to be in the area of Shahbad as on the night of 13.06.2025. He was arrested on 18.06.2025. Investigation qua him stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He was not present at the spot of occurrence. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. He is in custody since long. He was simply an employee of co-accused Dharambir and had nothing to do with the incident. Most of the co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. No useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. The petitioner is alleged to have been a member of the gang run by co-accused Noni Rana. He is further alleged to be an active participant in the criminal conspiracy to murder the victim as orchestrated by co-accused Noni Rana. He is further alleged to have done recce of the victim and to have facilitated the vehicle and location etc. of the victim as on the night of occurrence. The location of his mobile phone was found to be in the area of Shahbad. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). 8. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12686-2026 (O&M) -5- allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 10. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document