221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----11113333444400004444----2222000022226666 DECIDED ON: 28.07.2026 PPPPAAAARRRRVVVVEEEEEEEENNNN .....PETITIONER VERSUS SSSSTTTTAAAATTTTEEEE OOOOFFFF HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the complainant. SSSSAAAANNNNJJJJAAAAYYYY VVVVAAAASSSSHHHHIIIISSSSTTTTHHHH ,,,, JJJJ ((((OOOORRRRAAAALLLL)))) 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.309 dated 22.10.2023, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B of IPC (corresponding to sections 191, 190, 103 and 61 of BNS, 2023) registered at Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani. 2. Version of the FIR, is reproduced here under:- “To, The Police Post, In-charge, Jhumpa Kalan. Sir, It is requested that I, Anil Kumar son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, resident of Garwa, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani, Haryana, am a resident of the aforementioned address. We were two brothers. My elder brother was Vikram Kumar. On 21.10.2023 at around 7 PM, my brother Vikram went out stating that there is a Birthday of Vikas son Mandrup Singh resident of Garwa. He has called me there for a party. On 22.10.2023 at around 01.00 AM, 1 got a call from Sandeep son of Shri Dharampal resident of Garwa that Vehicle of Vikram is parked near the field of LAVISHA 2026.07.28 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----11113333444400004444----2222000022226666 ----2222---- Vikas near the Jinga Farm on the road of Suratpura and they are quarreling with Vikram. Thereafter, I came to know that Vikas son of Mandrup, Krishan son of Sumer Jakhar resident Surpura, by keeping the old rivalry in their mind with my brother Vikram for the fight occurred in the year 2019, Krishan son of Sumer resident of Surpura, Sumit son of Bhagwan Singh resident of Garwa, Vikas son of Mandrup resident of Garwa, Parveen son of Dilbag resident of Garwa, Akshay son of Mai Chand resident of Garwa and 3-4 other persons in connivance with each other were attacking with the intention of killing with edged weapons in their hands, Sticks (Dandas), iron rod and Rods (Saria). As soon as I reached at the spot then all those persons were running away from the spot. After that I and my brothers Sombir of Rajbir, Vikas son of Rajbir, Rajbir son of Ganpat Ram picked up my brother Vikram from the spot and left for Hisar for treatment. On the way my brother Vikram told that Vikas, Akshay, Sumit, Krishan, Praveen and 3-4 other persons together keeping in mind the old rivalry beat me badly with sticks, rods, iron rods and edged weapons with the intention to kill me. After going to Hisar Hospital, the doctors declared my brother Vikram dead. Hence, It is requested you to give the strict punishment to the murderers of my brother and get us justice.” 3. Broadly, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby co-accused Akshay was granted the concession of regular bail. Reliance has further been placed upon the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M-46963-2025 (Annexure P- 11), whereby another co-accused, namely Krishan, was also granted the concession of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has reiterated the very submissions that were advanced by learned Public Prosecutor before LAVISHA 2026.07.28 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----11113333444400004444----2222000022226666 ----3333---- the trial Court, at the time of consideration of the petitioner's application for regular bail. Contentions got recorded in the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani (Annexure P-5), whereby petitioner's application for regular bail came to be dismissed, are reproduced here below, for ready reference:- “Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor for State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that in the present case, death of Vikram has taken place for which reason present FIR under Section 148, 149, 302 IPC was registered and during investigation the role of applicant-accused has also transpired. There is also a pen-drive of the occurrence showing the manner in which the deceased was brutally treated prior to his murder. There are several criminal cases pending against the applicant- accused and also the PMR reflects 25 injuries to have been suffered by the deceased. In the present case, video has been played during the evidence, PW3 Vikas has identified the applicant-accused who can be seen sitting on the chest of the deceased and he to have been inflicting injuries to the deceased alongwith others resulting in his death for which reason it cannot be said that the applicant-accused is entitled to parity nor can it be said that his role is similar to the accused who have been extended the concession of bail by this court or these accused granted bail by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The identity of the applicant-accused stands proved from the videography which has been produced in evidence for which reason it cannot be said that the applicant-accused has been falsely implicated. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant-accused and after dismissing the first bail application on merits after which there has been no change in the circumstances. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence and possibility of applicant- accused exerting pressure upon the witnesses and interfering in the course of justice, the present bail application merits dismissal.” LAVISHA 2026.07.28 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----11113333444400004444----2222000022226666 ----4444---- 5. Upon considering the aforesaid submissions, learned trial Court, vide order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), concluded that petitioner was not entitled to claim parity with the other co-accused, who had been enlarged on bail. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and nature of the allegations, particularly specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of offence, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for extending the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage. AAAAccccccccoooorrrrddddiiiinnnnggggllllyyyy,,,, pppprrrreeeesssseeeennnntttt ppppeeeettttiiiittttiiiioooonnnn iiiissss ddddiiiissssmmmmiiiisssssssseeeedddd.... (SANJAY VASHISTH) 22228888....00007777....2222000022226666 JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.28 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh