CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 122 CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M). Date of Decision: 27.07.2026. Rajiv Kataria @ Raju ....Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH --- Present: Mr. Sween Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Malvika Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner-Rajiv Kataria @ Raju, aged 30 years, has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS (corresponding Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in case FIR No.18 dated 06.02.2020 under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 IPC (103, 109, 61, 3(5) of BNS), registered at Police Station Sadar Rewari, District Rewari. 2. With regard to the incident dated 05.02.2020, in which one person, namely Lalit alias Moni, was murdered and Deepak and Ashok sustained bullet injuries, FIR was registered at the instance of complainant namely Ashok Kumar alias Bhaddu. Contents of the FIR are reproduced as under:- “To the SHO P.S. Sadar Rewari. Sir, submitted that I, Ashok Kumar @ Bhaddu age 38 years son of Parkash Chand, Caste Ahir resident of Gokalgarh, PS Sadar Rewari, District Rewari, Mobile No. 8569831857. stated that I am a resident of the above address. And I have opened Hotel JITENDER 2026.07.27 19:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M) 2 Gangaicha Jat on NH 71 in the name of Bholenath. Yesterday on 05.02.2020, I had gone to village Jat Bhurthal for the marriage ceremony of my friend Dinesh resident of Jat Bhurthal. After eating food, I went out to urinate and there I met Moni alias Lalit and his friend with whom I was talking. The time would be around 9.45 PM when suddenly the sound of gunshot was heard and within a few moments I was also shot in the side of my right leg. Lalit alias Moni and Deepak also got hit by many bullets and the shooters fled from the spot immediately. Later I was fully satisfied that this shooting incident was committed by Hariom son of Gulab Singh resident of Basai Gurugram, Amit son of Brahmpal resident of Devi Lal Colony sector 9-A Gurugram and Pawan resident of Bhudka who lives with his aunt in Basai and others together fired at Lalit alias Moni and me with the intention of killing us and when I got injured, Nitish resident of Gokalgarh arranged for some means and got me admitted to the Government Hospital, Rewari for treatment where Dr. Saheb bandaged my body and he will tell about Lalit alias Moni and Deepak who got shot in this incident, strictest legal action should be taken against the accused, I have written the statement, heard it, read it, whatever is correct, Sd/- Ashok ATTESTED Dt. 06/02/2020.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of more than five years. 4. Explaining the status of trial, learned counsel submits that out of total 85 prosecution witnesses, only 27 have been examined, so far. It is further submitted that both the injured witnesses, namely Ashok and Deepak, who were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively, have not supported the prosecution case and failed to identify the petitioner as assailant who had fired upon them. 5. Developing his submissions further, learned counsel contends that as per the testimony of PW-1 namely Nitesh Kumar, although he had shifted injured Ashok to the hospital in his vehicle for medico-legal examination, however, Ashok, upon being asked, expressed his inability to identify the assailants. It is further submitted that another eye-witness, Punit, examined as PW-7, deposed in his examination-in-chief that only accused JITENDER 2026.07.27 19:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M) 3 Pawan, Hari Om and petitioner-Rajeev Katariya were firing at the spot, and he identified them in the witness box. He also identified Amit alias Kalu, whose name had been disclosed to him by Lalit alias Moni (since deceased) at the relevant time. 6. Learned counsel further submits that reference made by PW-7 to Hari Om, Amit alias Kalu and petitioner-Rajeev Katariya does not materially affect the petitioner’s claim for regular bail, as co-accused Amit Kataria alias Kalu has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in CRM- M-8932-2025 (Annexure P-3). Likewise, co-accused Hari Om was also granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in CRM-M-2225-2026 (Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that name of the petitioner was disclosed by co-accused Amit @ Kalu in his disclosure statement. Co-accused Rohit @ Landa has also been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-13991- 2026 (Annexure P-5). Further, co-accused Rahul and Sunil @ Sonu have also been granted regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-27960-2026 and CRM-M-28042-2026. 7. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that petitioner stands on a better footing than the aforesaid co- accused, who have already been enlarged on regular bail. Thus, it is prayed that petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail in the present case. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. It is contended that involvement of petitioner in the present case is JITENDER 2026.07.27 19:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M) 4 established on the basis of disclosure statement of co-acvcused Amit @ Kalu. 9. However, despite being afforded sufficient opportunity, learned State counsel is unable to point out any specific material distinguishing the case of the present petitioner, so as to deny him the concession of regular bail, particularly when co-accused Hari Om and Amit Kataria alias Kalu, against whom more serious and direct allegations have been attributed, have already been granted the concession of regular bail. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the material available on record. 11. At this stage, this Court does not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the merits of the evidence collected during the course of investigation or adduced during trial, otherwise it may prejudice the case of either party. However, broad nature of the evidence has already been noticed here above. 12. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, particularly prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, stage of the trial, the fact that only 27 out of 85 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and parity arising from the grant of regular bail to the similarly situated co-accused, this Court is of the considered view that conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would not be justified. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the totality of facts and circumstances noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his JITENDER 2026.07.27 19:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-26197-2026 (O&M) 5 furnishing bail/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 14. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 15. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 16. Petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 27.07.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No Whether Reportable : Yes/ No JITENDER 2026.07.27 19:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document