1 1 CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) 221 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB v. CRM-M-2586-2025
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) 221 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Boby State of Harya Haryana versus CRM-M-2586-2025 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 24, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryan aryana. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Naga Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing F
Legal Reasoning
, aring FIR No.183 dated 18.06.2016, registered for d for the offences punishable under S dian nder Sections 302, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18 ode, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) & Section (for ection 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms A rms Act’), at Police Station Chandhut, ndhut, District Palwal. 2. The case set up in the FIR in que esent in question (as set out in the present petition by the by the petitioner) is as follows:- “To, SHO Chandhat. Sir, I Bi resident of Alawalpur, Mohalla Laddu eldest is Rahul@ Monty, then Bittu a evening at about 8 o'clock my brother Lakhanpal S/o Shimbhu Dayal caste B give medicine, on which my brother medicine to the buffalo. When he reac Narveer @ Pappu R/o Alavalpur c
Legal Reasoning
I Bittu S/o Shrichand caste Nai, am a a addu Ka. We were three brothers. The he ay ttu and the youngest is Pankaj. Today ther received a call to see the buffalo of of ste Brahmin in village Alavalpur i.e. to . to ive other went on his motorcycle to give S/o reached his plot, the accused Bobby S/o her r caste Jat and with him his father MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 2 CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) Narveer @ Pappu, and his uncle Bham men were standing there. As soon as @ Jagbir said to Bobby that I have c shot my brother three times with a pist passing through the square. Hearing th p saw this incident with my own eyes an I shouted and called my family mem came there. We were taking him to Pal car and on the way we informed the p brother's statement in which he told th Pappu had shot him. After taking the should take him to the hospital as soo the doctor and they asked him, he also and he breathed his last in Apex hos dead and then we brought him to the g police. The doctor here also declared h p in the mortuary. This incident with my the accused due to old enmity. About brother had a fight with the accused family members came to our house fa reported the matter to the police stati the Panchayat, but this entire family h threaten to kill us from time to time quarrelsome people. Strictest legal a accused.” her Bhambal @ Jagbir and two-three other bal as my brother reached there, Bhambal ave come, shoot him. Thereafter Bobby by pistol from the front. At that time I was as nd ing the gunshot I also reached there and s and when I shouted they all ran away. ay. members. Hearing this the neighbours urs ero Palwal hospital in Ramkishan's Bolero my he police station and the police took my ld the police that Bobby S/o Narveer @ @ the statement the police said that you ou to soon as possible. When we took him to also told them (my brother) Bobby name me hospital and the doctor declared him im the government hospital Palwal with the the ept red him dead and got his dead body kept my brother was deliberately caused by by bout one and a quarter years ago, my my his sed over playing, due to which all his ad use with weapons to kill us. We had station. Later, the matter was settled in in ily had enmity with us and they used to to nd time. The accused are gangsters and the al action should be taken against the 3. Learned counsel for the petitione , the titioner has argued that initially, the petitioner was r was arrested on 18.06.2016, where the whereinafter, he was extended the concession of ion of bail on 21.01.2020 on account , the ccount of juvenility. Thereafter, the petitioner sur surrendered back to the custod s in custody on 27.05.2022 and is in continuous cu us custody since then. Learned co has ed counsel for the petitioner has iterated that that there is delay in culmination not ation of trial and the same is not attributable to ble to the petitioner. Learned counsel at no ounsel has further submitted that no cogent eviden evidence has yet come on record t f the ord to indicate culpability of the petitioner qua qua offence in question. Thus, regul , regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) 3 3 State counsel h unsel has further submitted that there ioner there is clear allegation of petitioner having fired s fired shots upon the victim, which r rned hich resulted in his death. Learned State counsel unsel also submitted that ballistic rep cates tic report in question also indicates towards culpab culpability of the offence. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was initially arre was ly arrested on 18.06.2016 and was granted conce concession of bail on 21.01.2020. Th have . Thereafter, he is stated to have surrendered ba red back to the custody on 27.05.2022 tody 5.2022 and is in continuous custody incarceration s ation since then. Total 31 prosecution and cution witnesses have been cited and only 12 have b have been examined till date. The riva by he rival contentions raised at Bar by learned counse counsel for the parities, on merits of t table its of the case, give rise to debatable issues shall be hall be ratiocinated upon during the co does the course of trial. This Court does not deem it a m it appropriate to delve deep into t this into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it est it may prejudice the trial. Nothin ught Nothing tangible has been brought forward to in to indicate the likelihood of the pe the the petitioner absconding from the process of ju of justice or interfering with the p per the prosecution evidence. As per custody certifi certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by l, the ed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has r has already suffered incarceration 06 ration for a period of more than 06 years and 09 nd 09 months. At this juncture, thi grant re, this Court is inclined to grant concession of ion of regular bail to the petitioner, t the oner, firstly, for the reason that the petitioner was r was initially extended concession hich ssion of bail on 21.01.2020, which continued in h d in his favour since 27.05.2022, bu the , but there is nothing to show the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) 4 4 same having aving been misused; secondly, the total , the petitioner has suffered total incarceration o ation of 06 years and 09 months and t s yet s and the prosecution evidence is yet to be conclude ncluded. Further, as per the said custo er is d custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be in be involved in 02 more cases. How be a However, this factum cannot be a ground suffici sufficient by itself, to decline the con o the he concession of regular bail to the petitioner in th r in the FIR in question when a case i gular ase is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FI the FIR in question by ratiocinating u es of ating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. R FIR. Reliance in this regard can be pl f the be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. A .P. hd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2 her, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 nt of 86; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble C ’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (2) e of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Crimina minal) 477 & judgments of this Cou 2022 is Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhil khilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , and yana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Cr (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall re wing hall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis ot mis-use the liberty granted. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 5 CRM-M-2586-20 2025 (O&M) (ii) The petitioner shall not tam or documentary, during the (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot tamper with any evidence, oral ng the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not com ot commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in give his cellphone number to the the r/SHO of concerned Police Station ation prior his cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. the in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 24, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin Whether reportab peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment