The gravamen of the FIR reflects that namely FIR reflects that & Ors. v. Amaramani Tripathi

Judgment

#1. 483 of BNSS, Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, Present petition has been filed grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR 2023 seeking No.333 dated , registered for the offences punishable under dated 10.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under , registered for the offences punishable under of BNS read with s 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) of BNS read with s 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) Sections 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (added later on) ) and Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS at Police Station and Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS (deleted) at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat. Matlauda, District Panipat.

The gravamen of the FIR reflects that namely FIR reflects that the complainant namely he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, Bhim Singh has alleged that he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, he was having Shop No.35 at Grain Market, Bhim Singh Matlauda and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. and stated that his son namely Shubham was a close friend of Ajit. accused Jitender Kumar alias A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co-accused Jitender Kumar alias A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co A dispute had arisen between Ajit and co Panchayat was convened at the shop of Baba. In order to settle the dispute, a Panchayat was convened at the shop of Panchayat was convened at the shop of Baba. In order to settle the dispute, a the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused the complainant on 09.10.2025. During the course of such meeting, accused CRM-M- -16744-2026 2 Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky -Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky Jitender Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh (petitioner herein), Naveen, Micky g on at and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were going on at and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were goin and other associates arrived at the spot. As the discussions were goin the first floor of the shop, suddenly a violent altercation e the first floor of the shop, . The a violent altercation ensued. The complainant has alleged that the accused complainant attacked Ajit and the accused Surender had attacked Ajit and Vikas with a knife. When the complainant tried to intervene, Vikas with a knife accused . When the complainant tried to intervene, accused him which hit on his left shoulder. Jitender Kumar Baba fired gunshot at him which hit on his left shoulder. him which hit on his left shoulder. Jitender Kumar Baba fired gunshot Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the Thereafter accused jitender Kumar fired many gun shots upon them. In the meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence meantime, many shopkeepers/labourers arrived at the scene of occurrence upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. The injured were upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. upon which all the assailants/accused fled from the spot. . On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be taken to hospital. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be . On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be taken to hospital ubsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading registered. Subsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading ubsequently, Vikas Kumar succumbed to his injuries, leading registered. to addition of the offence of murder. to addition of the offence of murder.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that th Learned counsel for the petitioner has that the Learned petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned petitioner has been falsely implicated in petitioner has been falsely implicated in no specific injury has been attributed to the counsel has further iterated that no specific injury has been attributed to the no specific injury has been attributed to the counsel has further iterated that and the main allegations are against co- petitioner in the FIR in question and the main allegations are against co and the main allegations are against co petitioner in the FIR accused Surender and Jitender Kumar Baba respectively. accused Surender and Jitend It has been further er Kumar Baba respectively. It has been further contended that even as per the allegations contended that in the FIR, the role even as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part attributed to the petitioner is limited in nature and no injury on any vital part of the body has been attributed to him. It has been of the body has been attributed to him. that no It has been further contended that no no forensic weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and there is no forensic weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and evidence which with the fatal injuries suffered by the which connects the petitioner with the fatal injuries suffered by the with the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased. According to learned counsel, the deceased. According to learned counsel, the incident in question arose arose on account of sudden altercation between two groups and a cross account of sudden altercation version has between two groups and a cross-version has also been registered. It has been further also been registered. argued that the entire prosecution has been further argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands case rests upon ocular evidence and all the material evidence already stands CRM-M- -16744-2026 3 Learned counsel has pointed that the collected by the investigating agency. Learned counsel has pointed that the Learned counsel has pointed that the collected by the investiga petitioner is stated to be in custody since petitioner

25.10.2025; investigation stands custody since 25.10.2025; investigation stands competent concluded and challan has already been presented before the competent concluded and challan has already been presented concluded and challan has already been presented Court of jurisdiction of jurisdiction. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take useful purpose would be served for useful purpose would be served considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served considerable time, therefore, It has been further asserted that continued incarceration of the petitioner. It has been further asserted that continued incarceration of the petitioner petitioner undertakes to abide by all the petitioner undertakes to abide by all may be the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting the imposed by this On the the concession of regular bail. On the grant of regular bail is entreated for. strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. strength of these submissions,

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel present , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the petitioner has been petition by lly named in the has been specifically named in the FIR with a clear and active role in the occurrence. FIR with a clear According to learned active role in the occurrence. According to learned part of an unlawful assembly armed with State counsel, the petitioner is a part of an unlawful assembly armed with part of an unlawful assembly armed with State counsel, the petitioner is a actively participated in the assault on the deadly weapons and has actively participated in the assault on the actively participated in the assault on the deadly weapons and ha complainant which ultimately resulted in the death of one person. complainant Referring tely resulted in the death of one person. Referring to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy to reply dated 20.05.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Deputy II, learned State counsel has iterated that Superintendent of Police, Panipat-II, learned State counsel has iterated that II, learned State counsel has iterated that Superintendent of Police, Panipat the manner in which the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly and the manner in which the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly an the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly an the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all the occurrence took place clearly demonstrates the common intention of all , relevant whereof reads as under: the accused persons, relevant whereof reads as under: the accused persons “4. He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender Role of Petitioner:- He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender He accompanied Jitender @ Baba, Surender atlauda for the proposed @ Sundar and others to Grain Market, Matlauda for the proposed @ Sundar and others to Grain Market, M Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta Panchayat/settlement meeting relating to dispute between Ajit @ Jeeta and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated and Jitender @ Baba. Before reaching the spot, he allegedly participated in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his in discussions wherein it was decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and his ologize, they would teach them a lesson. During companions did not apologize, they would teach them a lesson. During ologize, they would teach them a lesson. During the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated the altercation in the room above Shop No. 35, he allegedly participated in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ in the fight and admitted that he, along with others, caught hold of Ajit @ accused Jeeta and Vicky Gujjar and kicked them. During the scuffle, co-accused Jeeta and Vicky Gujjar and kicked them. During the scuffle, CRM-M- -16744-2026 4 Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the parkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vikas @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that he, along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the along with others, overpowered Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto the ributed to Rakesh is primarily participation adhti's seat. Thus, the role attributed to Rakesh is primarily participation ributed to Rakesh is primarily participation assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the in the unlawful assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the assembly/fight, allegedly assaulting members of the being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after opposite side, being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after being part of the group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta after the firing and participation in the events leading to the occurrence.” the firing and participation in the events leading to the occurrence. Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has further submitted that after completion of learned State counsel has further submitted that learned State counsel has further submitted that investigation, the challan against the petitioner investigation, presented before the challan against the petitioner stands presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Considering competent Court gravity of the offence and Considering the gravity of the offence and has prayed specific role attributed to the petitioner, learned State counsel has prayed specific role attributed to the petitioner, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, for the dismissal of the instant petition. for the dismissal of the instant petition.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. perused the available record.

#6. The grant of bail falls within t he discretionary domain of the he grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and ourt must the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must the interests of justice. While considering a bai the interests of justice. While considering a bai evidence implicating evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating evaluate factors such as the existence of evaluate factors such as the existence of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The the likely sentence upon conviction. ourt must also assess the The Court must also assess the lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the lihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension the accused the accused the accused the accused tampering with evidence or tampering with evidence or tampering with evidence or tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. influencing witnesses. influencing witnesses. influencing witnesses. ancial means, societal standing, Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing, Additionally, the character, antecedents, fin Additionally, the character, antecedents, fin and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the ourt must weigh Court must weigh ourt must weigh ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the potential danger of bail undermining the potential danger of bail undermining the potential danger of bail undermining CRM-M- -16744-2026 5 A profitable reference administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference administration of justice or thwarting its due course. administration of justice or thwarting its due course. gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court gard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , 2005 AIR Supreme State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi relevant whereof reads as under: Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under: Court 3490, “14. application It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to committed the offence; (ii) nature and believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and committed the offence; (ii) nature and punishment in the event of gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on sed absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Singh urse, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper ). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the mere presence at large would accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would accused is of such character that his he will use his intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that e or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be e or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in reg 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate document ation of the merit of the case need not be elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the being granted particularly where the serious offence. Any order accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order accused is charged of having committed a devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is d of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is court granting bail to consider among other among other also necessary for the court granting bail to consider circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: punishment in case of a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of a. The nature of accusation and the severity of the nature of supporting evidence. conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of b. Reasonable apprehension of b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with tampering with tampering with the witness or the witness or the witness or threat to the complainant. apprehension of threat to the complainant. CRM-M- -16744-2026 6 c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court Ram court in support of the charge. (see Ram vindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 vindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.” (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. Court also in specific terms held that : This Court also in specific terms held that : “the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration the unlikelihood of trial already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial already undergone by the accused concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused offences on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, tain period our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone cer incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely near future either by itself or coupled with the to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on sufficient for enlarging the appellant on is severe and there are bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are bail when the gravity of the offence alleged during the allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused period he was on bail.”

#7. Indubitably, the allegations against the petitioner are grave in he allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. The material The material which has come on record, at this stage, prima facie on record, at this stage, prima facie the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving discloses that the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving the occurrence was not a sudden act but an incident involving discloses that a group of accused persons who have assembled at the a group of accused persons who ha place of occurrence assembled at the place of occurrence leading to the have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side leading to the have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side and have allegedly assaulted the members of the opposite side commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed commission of the offence. Although the petitioner may not be attributed the prosecution case is that the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury but the prosecution case is that the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury the specific act of inflicting the fatal injury he was part of the s part of the unlawfuly assembly/fight which acted with a common /fight which acted with a common object and participated in the events leading to the occurrence object and . The question participated in the events leading to the occurrence. The question exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter with regard to exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter exact nature and extent of his participation would be a matter with regard to to be ratiocinated upon during the course of to be ratiocinated upon appreciation of course of trial after appreciation of and cannot be conclusively determined at evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at and cannot be conclusively determined at evidence the stage of the stage of the stage of CRM-M- -16744-2026 7 raised on behalf of the petitioner that consideration of regular bail. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that raised on behalf of the petitioner that consideration of no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and that the overt acts does not persuade this Court to grant attributed to co-accused persons, also does not persuade this Court to grant does not persuade this Court to grant attributed to co the concession of regular bail in the peculiar facts the concession of regular of the case. bail in the peculiar facts/circumstances of the case. In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual In offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual sed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a liability cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a sed solely on the basis of the injury attributed to a liability cannot be asses particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates particular accused. The prosecution version, at this stage, indicates in the death of a collective participation in an occurrence which resulted in the death of a collective participation in an occurrence which collective participation in an occurrence which person and injuries to others. This Court is also mindful person and injuries to others. of the gravity of the This Court is also mindful of the gravity of the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the allegations. The incident resulted in the loss of human life and involved the use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which use of deadly weapons. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which which weigh the occurrence is alleged to have taken place are the factors which weigh the occurrence is alleged to have taken place the occurrence is alleged to have taken place against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial heavily against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial against the petitioner. The evidence is yet to be tested during trial and none of the out of total 37 witnesses have been none of the prosecution witnesses out of total 37 witnesses have been out of total 37 witnesses have been Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution examined. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution examined regarding the possibility of influencing witnesses cannot be brushed aside regarding the possibility of influencing wi regarding the possibility of influencing wi tnesses cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role . The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though attributed to the petitioner, weighs heavily against the grant of bail. Though llan has the petitioner has been in custody since 25.10.2025 and the challan has the petitioner has been in custody since the petitioner has been in custody since these factors by themselves are not sufficient to already been presented but these factors by themselves are not sufficient to these factors by themselves are not sufficient to already been presented dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him. dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him. dilute the gravity of the offence alleged against him.

#8. It is apt to mention herein that the have a apt to mention herein that the offence(s) in question have a serious impact on the Society at large. The serious impact on intensity and the nature of injury . The intensity and the nature of injury on the person of the victim prima facie on the person of the victim reflect a complete disregard of prima facie reflect a complete disregard of no accentuating human life on the part of the petitioner. At this stage, no accentuating human life on the part of the petitioner. A human life on the part of the petitioner. A constitute a circumstances have been made which may prima facie constitute a circumstances have been made which circumstances have been made which CRM-M- -16744-2026 8 round for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially round for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially compelling g It is also in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. It is also in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record. to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the very root of ence. Granting bail in such cases would not public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not ence. Granting bail in such cases would not public order and societal consci only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the accused.

#9. Considering the gravity of the offence specific role gravity of the offence, the specific role and the likelihood of his influencing the attributed to the petitioner and the likelihood of his influencing the and the likelihood of his influencing the attributed to the petitioner prosecution witnesses this Court finds no merit in the present petition. rosecution witnesses, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does of the case in not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual hand.

#10. (i) dismissed. dismissed. the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby (ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove g agency shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigatin shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigatin as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order. being influenced with this order. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 202 Ajay 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No