CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 314 CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Deepak @ Sonu @ Dada ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.240 dated 20.08.2021, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 20.08.2021 at about 6:15 PM, the complainant Sitender, deceased Surender @ Gullar and two others were sitting at the workshop of the deceased situated near the HP Petrol Pump on Jhajjar-Bahadurgarh Road. At that time, a grey Swift car arrived at the spot. Four persons alighted from the vehicle, while the driver remained seated inside. The four assailants allegedly opened indiscriminate fire upon Surender @ Gullar. On hearing the gunshots, the complainant and others ran for cover. The assailants fled from the spot in the same vehicle towards Jhajjar. The MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) -2- injured Surender @ Gullar was immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh, where he was declared dead. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim and inquest proceedings were conducted. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons and investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. During the course of investigation, accused Bhupender @ Bhuppi was arrested in another murder case. In his disclosure statement, he confessed his involvement in the present case. After securing his production warrant on 08.10.2021, he was formally arrested in the present FIR and during interrogation, he made another disclosure statement naming Sunny, Naveen @ Bali, Amit @ Lota, Naveen @ Bhanja, Himanshu @ Bhau, Morish @ Kuki and Manjeet @ Cheeta as co-accused. Subsequently, Amit @ Lota was joined in the investigation through a production warrant on 26.10.2021 but as no incriminating material surfaced against him, he was exonerated. Thereafter, on 16.11.2021, the present petitioner Deepak @ Dada was arrested in the present case through a production warrant while he was in custody in connection with another case. His disclosure statement was recorded, pursuant to which, the place of occurrence was demarcated and the Swift car allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. The petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently during investigation primarily on the basis of disclosure statements. It is argued that no overt act or specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) -3- even according to the prosecution version, it was the four assailants who got down from the vehicle and fired at the deceased, whereas the petitioner remained seated inside the car. It is further contended that during the deposition of PW-1, the complainant reiterated that the petitioner was sitting on the driver's seat and did not attribute any act of firing to him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 16.11.2021, investigation stands concluded, challan has been presented, charges have been framed and the complainant has already been examined. Since the material witnesses have substantially been examined, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the prosecution evidence. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. His continued detention militates against his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. No useful purpose is going to be served by detaining him into custody anymore. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He was an active participant in a pre-planned murder committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The allegations pertain to a broad daylight murder executed by a group of assailants who arrived together in a vehicle. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR and is stated to have remained seated in the car during the occurrence, the prosecution case is that he was part of the unlawful MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) -4- assembly which was formed to execute the murder. Significantly, the complainant, while appearing as PW-1, has identified the petitioner in Court and has specifically stated that the petitioner was sitting on the driver's seat of the Swift car in which the assailants had reached the place of occurrence. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. A perusal of the status report would show that apart from the present case, the petitioner is involved in three more cases of murder, which prima facie shows that he is a person of criminal mind. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with the co- accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence. 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 complainant 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. Though the petitioner has remained in MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25268-2026 (O&M) -5- custody for a considerable period and the complainant has been examined, the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the accusation, the identification of the petitioner during trial and the material collected by the prosecution outweigh the factors pressed into service by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted concession of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, since the trial is pending since long and the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable time, the learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of 04 months from today. 8. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document