CRM-M-46437 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT MANDEEP @ MANDHU STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Present: Mr. Mr. M.S. Dalal Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 212 and 120B of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal 46437-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM MANDEEP @ MANDHU Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 212 and 120B of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46437-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved 08.09.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.09.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 10.09.2026 operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for arising out of FIR No.73 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 212 and 120B of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Section for 73 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections 212 and 120B of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46437 2. The aforementioned FIR wa complaint submitted by the complainant nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of @ Marku, Rahul and Balje help the above against them as they had committed the murder 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Parveen had victim killed. He further alle brother Ramdiya and when he left the near the corner of the street, he saw standing outside his scorpio vehicle someone on his mobile phone. At the the present petitioner unknown person towards the vehicle of the Rathore along with window panes of 46437-2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written submitted by the complainant-Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet @ Kala, had been help the above-named Jitender @ Gogi, and against them as they had committed the murder 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Parveen had proclaimed that they would get the victim killed. He further alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his brother Ramdiya and when he left the house of his brother and had reached near the corner of the street, he saw that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was standing outside his scorpio vehicle and was having conver someone on his mobile phone. At the same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep the present petitioner and Anmol reached there unknown person, carrying weapons in their hands, towards the vehicle of the victim. Simultaneously, Baljeet @ Kala Rathore along with one unknown person reached there and they damaged the window panes of the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny s registered on the basis of a written Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ Gogi at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing assistance to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of Ranjit Singh had been pressurizing Satish to not to named Jitender @ Gogi, and another case was registered against them as they had committed the murder of one Sandeep on 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram had accompanied Rahul to the District Courts, Kurukshetra, to attend the hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at that time, accused Ranjit proclaimed that they would get the 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his house of his brother and had reached that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was and was having conversation with same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep i.e. and Anmol reached there, accompanied by one , carrying weapons in their hands, and were seen rushing im. Simultaneously, Baljeet @ Kala and Ajay one unknown person reached there and they damaged the the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny s registered on the basis of a written Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was Gogi assistance it Singh pressurizing Satish to not to another case was registered of one Sandeep on taram Kurukshetra, to attend the that time, accused Ranjit proclaimed that they would get the 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his house of his brother and had reached that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was sation with i.e. by one and were seen rushing and Ajay one unknown person reached there and they damaged the the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46437 threw red chilly towards the rear assailants, who caused petitioner told the other assailants to teach him lesson for handling (pairvi) the proceedings of the today. Rescue alarm was raised assailants fired three shots with The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the the FIR, investigation of the dead body was 3. As per the further allegations, the Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. statements admitting their involvement in the crime Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, Ajay and Vikas @ Budli additional accused of the victim. suffered disclosure statement with co-accused Anmol, for murder of the victim. In of deceased Sitaram @ conspiracy and as per near the liquor vend of the scorpio vehicle, he had 46437-2026 (O&M) 3 threw red chilly powder in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and towards the rear seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the assailants, who caused injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. petitioner told the other assailants to teach him lesson for handling (pairvi) the proceedings of the Court in others cases and he should not be escaped live Rescue alarm was raised by the complainant and Kapil. However, the assailants fired three shots with a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post of the dead body was conducted. As per the further allegations, the Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. admitting their involvement in the crime Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, Vikas @ Budli and some other co additional accused. The petitioner disclosed that accused Abhi had done recce of the victim. Co-accused Abhay @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered disclosure statement admitting that he alongwith the petitioner along accused Anmol, Baljeet @ Kala and Vika for murder of the victim. In pursuance of that conspiracy, they had done recce of deceased Sitaram @ Satish. On the night of 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the conspiracy and as per instructions of the petitioner near the liquor vend of the victim Satish and when Satish left his office in his scorpio vehicle, he had given intimation about the said fact to co powder in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and rushed seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. The petitioner told the other assailants to teach him lesson for handling (pairvi) the Court in others cases and he should not be escaped live by the complainant and Kapil. However, the a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination As per the further allegations, the petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and Anmol @ Sunny were arrested on 07.05.2023. They suffered disclosure admitting their involvement in the crime on the basis of which, Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, other co-accused were nominated as The petitioner disclosed that accused Abhi had done recce @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He admitting that he alongwith the petitioner along and Vikas had hatched a conspiracy pursuance of that conspiracy, they had done recce Satish. On the night of 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the the petitioner, he had remained present victim Satish and when Satish left his office in his given intimation about the said fact to co-accused rushed seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the The petitioner told the other assailants to teach him lesson for handling (pairvi) the Court in others cases and he should not be escaped live by the complainant and Kapil. However, the a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. injuries. After registration of mortem examination petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and They suffered disclosure on the basis of which, Ranjeet, Abhi, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajinder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, accused were nominated as The petitioner disclosed that accused Abhi had done recce @ Abhi was arrested on 10.05.2023. He admitting that he alongwith the petitioner along s had hatched a conspiracy pursuance of that conspiracy, they had done recce Satish. On the night of 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the sent victim Satish and when Satish left his office in his accused AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46437 Ajay who had completed and the petitio commission of aforementioned offences. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. conclude as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The eye implicated the petitioner or the co offences and ha allegations of Singh @ Marku, extended benefit of urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith the co hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim and on his instructions recce of the victim was done. The the petitioner with iron hammer and he has also exhorted the co teach him a lesson. His case is different from the co extended benefit of bail. 46437-2026 (O&M) 4 Ajay who had subsequently killed the victim. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co commission of aforementioned offences. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery has been effected from him. petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Trial will take considerable as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The eye-witnesses Pyara Singh-complainant and Kapil ha the petitioner or the co-accused in the commission of the subject and have turned hostile. There is no material to link allegations of assaulting the victim. The co- Singh @ Marku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ Sunny and Ra extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be on bail. Learned State counsel has argued that tions against the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith the co hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim and on his instructions recce of the victim was done. The window of the vehicle of the victim was broken by the petitioner with iron hammer and he has also exhorted the co teach him a lesson. His case is different from the co extended benefit of bail. There are chances of his subsequently killed the victim. Investigation now stands ner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served Trial will take considerable time to as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so complainant and Kapil have not accused in the commission of the subject There is no material to link him with the -accused Baljeet @ Kala, Ranjit Aman Kumar, Anmol @ Sunny and Rahul Pawar have been bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be argued that there are serious tions against the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim and on his instructions recce of of the vehicle of the victim was broken by the petitioner with iron hammer and he has also exhorted the co-accused to teach him a lesson. His case is different from the co-accused, who have been There are chances of his absconding or committing subsequently killed the victim. Investigation now stands is facing trial for It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been The petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. No useful purpose would be served time to as only 05 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so not accused in the commission of the subject him with the t @ Kala, Ranjit hul Pawar have been Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserve to be there are serious accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim and on his instructions recce of of the vehicle of the victim was broken by accused to accused, who have been absconding or committing AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46437 similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The co-accused to eliminate the victim of that conspiracy, the fateful day. The witnesses, complainant before the learned record certified Singh is shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not assailants as there was no light, and that he has not seen the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co accused. This witness examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the same stand, thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled against him. Further, eye being a co-villager, he petitioner nor the co hostile and cross Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has record in the form of testimon complainant and eye 46437-2026 (O&M) 5 similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the accused to eliminate the victim Sitaram @ Satish that conspiracy, that the victim had been killed by firing shots upon him on the fateful day. The petitioner was named in the FIR. However, complainant-Pyara Singh and Kapil have before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certified copies of testimonies of these Singh is shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not as there was no light, and the street was dark he has not seen the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co This witness had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled Further, eye-witness Kapil deposed villager, he knew the petitioner and affirmed that neither the petitioner nor the co-accused committed any offence hostile and cross-examined, however, he firmly adhered to the testimony g into consideration the nature of the evidence which has record in the form of testimonies of the most material witness and eye-witness Kapil, the period spent by the petitioner in It is, therefore, stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the Sitaram @ Satish and it was in pursuance killed by firing shots upon him on d in the FIR. However, the eye- Pyara Singh and Kapil have since been examined trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on of these witnesses. Complainant-Pyara Singh is shown to have stated that on the fateful day, he could not see the the street was dark. Further, he deposed he has not seen the petitioner causing injuries to the victim and the co- had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled deposed before the Trial Court that, the petitioner and affirmed that neither the accused committed any offence. He was also declared firmly adhered to the testimony. g into consideration the nature of the evidence which has come on of the most material witnesses i.e. the , the period spent by the petitioner in stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the and it was in pursuance killed by firing shots upon him on - since been examined trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on Pyara the deposed - had been declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but is shown to have maintained the thereby exonerating the petitioner from the allegations as levelled that, the petitioner and affirmed that neither the . He was also declared . come on i.e. the , the period spent by the petitioner in AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46437 custody and the attendant facts and circums the considered opinion that the release on bail in his favour. petitioner is ordered to be released personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same bearing on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma 46437-2026 (O&M) 6 the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No tances of the case, this Court is of petitioner has made out a case for grant of Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No this Court is of petitioner has made out a case for grant of Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the ing the learned trial Court/Chief It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.