CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 310 CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Ikshan Singh Mehta ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the second petition as 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. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-No.66104- 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026. 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 HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -2- 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 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 which, some additional accused were nominated. The petitioner was joined into investigation on 18.06.2025. Accused Shubham Khurana was also arrested and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that accused Noni Rana gangster had told him that the weapons and motorcycle for murder of the victim would be arranged by co-accused HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -3- Prbhjot and the petitioner. On his disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as accused. It transpired that on 04.06.2025, on directions of co-accused Noni Rana and Badal Heer, the petitioner along with co- accused Harneet Singh and Harman had gone to the shop of Mohit and had brought an Apache motorcycle as well as two fake registration number plates. This motorcycle was used in the crime. It was also revealed that on 13.06.2025, after murder of victim Shantanu, the petitioner along with co-accused Harneet had dropped the main shooter Romil Vohra at Saharanpur in a swift car, thereby harbouring the assailant. The call detail records of the mobile phone of the petitioner was also collected, which revealed that during the period from 01.06.2025 to 20.06.2025, he had made several calls to co-accused Harneet Singh. On 10.06.2025 and 14.06.2025, the location of his cell phone was also found to be in the village of co-accused Harneet Singh, which make it clear that he had brought motorbike from accused Harneet Singh on that day. The investigation also revealed that the tower location of his mobile phone was found near village Sudail where the weapons were kept for the incident on the night of 13.06.2025. The tower location of his phone was found to be at toll plaza Sarsawa and Saharanpur after the occurrence, showing that he along with co-accused had gone to drop the main shooter Romil Vohra to Saharanpur. The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation qua him stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in custody since long. Co-accused Mohit Kumar, Deepinder Pal HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -4- Kirat, Abhishek Thakral, Prbhjot, Vansh Rana, Jaspal Singh and Gaurav Gupta have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be granted the same benefit. He was not present at the spot of occurrence. No specific role has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. Each day spent by him in custody furnishes a new ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable being the second one. His previous petition has been dismissed by this Court on 12.02.2026 by passing a detailed order. There is no substantial or drastic change in the circumstances. It is, thus, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused to commit the murder of the victim and in pursuance of which, he is alleged to have received an Apache motorcycle and fake registration number plates and to have placed the said motorcycle in village Sudail so that the same could be used by the assailants to commit murder of the victim. He is also alleged to have harboured the actual assailant in the car of co-accused Harneet Singh to Saharanpur after the latter had committed the murder of the victim. His active complicity in the crime stands prima facie established. The allegations against him are serious in nature. His previous petition had been dismissed only on 12.02.2026. He has failed to point out any substantive or drastic change in HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -5- the circumstances except that some co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. The allegations against him are much graver and therefore, the principle of parity does not weigh in his favour. 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 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. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22526-2026 (O&M) -6- 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