IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 Mohd Fajal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate, for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 -2- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0122 15.10.2025 PS Akera, District Nuh 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126, 351(3), 109(1) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Shokin alleging therein that on 14.10.2025, he had gone to his fields to harvest the paddy crop. At about 8:30 AM, his sister Anjila was bringing breakfast for him, while on the way, the present petitioner and co-accused Hurera forcibly pulled her inside a paddy field and tried to outrage her modesty. She somehow got herself released and came to the complainant and disclosed about the entire incident to him. The complainant went to the petitioner and co-accused Hurera for asking the reasonsfor harassing his sister. Both of them assaulted him, hurled abuses and extended threat to kill him if he disclosed about the incident to anyone. The complainant alleged that he had informed his family members who had reached there and when they were leaving for the purpose of reporting the matter to the police, they were intercepted by accused Irsad, Robin, Amin, Razaak, Abbas, Rashid, Qadir and Momin. All of whom opened an assault upon the complainant and his family members and caused injuries to them. They were rescued by Rasheed, Rizwan and Zahul. The assailants had then fled away while extending threats to kill them. The MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 -3- injured were rushed to the hospital and were medically examined. 3. Initially, a case under Sections 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of BNS was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was joined into investigation and was extended benefit of police bail. Subsequently, offence under Section 109 (1) of BNS was added. The petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was allowed vide order dated 15.01.2026. After death of the victim, offence under Section 103(1) of BNS was added on 19.01.2026. The prosecution then moved an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner which was allowed. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, the complainant party was the aggressor. He is in custody for a period of more than five months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had tried to outrage the modesty of the sister of the complainant when she was coming towards the fields. There is no allegation that he was amongst the persons who had assaulted the victim Attu. His presence at the spot at the time of assaulting the victim and any other person has not been established. The ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1) or 103(1) of BNS are not attracted qua him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 -4- complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co- accused and opened an assault upon the victim and his family members by causing injuries with lathi. The said lathi has been recovered at his instance. The victim had died on 19.01.2026. The allegations as to petitioner’s causing homicidal death of the victim along with the co-accused, stands prima facie established. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have tried to outrage the modesty of the sister of the complainant Shokin and sometime thereafter, he along with the co-accused is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant and the victim Attu by causing injuries with lathi to him. The victim had died on 19.01.2026 as a result of these injuries. The active complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence of murder of the victim stands prima facie established. He has also been linked with the offence attributed with the aid of Section 190 of BNS which has the following ingredients; 1. There must be an unlawful assembly; 2. Commission of an offence may be by any member of the unlawful assembly; and 3. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or must be such as the members of the assembly MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 -5- knew to be likely to be committed. 8. From a perusal of the above ingredients, it is apparent that even mere presence in the unlawful assembly but with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly. Under Section 190 of BNS, the liability of the other members, for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object or not. Such knowledge can reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of the participants at or before the scene of action. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner along with the co-accused by forming membership of an unlawful assembly is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant and the victim. The allegations prima facie show his clear involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with 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 103(1) of BNS. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.35670 of 2026 -6- (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). 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. 10. In light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finding no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 11. 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. (MANISHA BATRA) 30.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh