Abhishek v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Jan 2026
- Bench
- MANDEEP PANNU
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 323
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. January 14, 2026 6 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable…
Judgment
MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.
of the The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 The present is the third petition filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, registered initially under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and during the se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in course of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in se of investigation Section 323 IPC was also added. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021. custody since 25.05.2021.
As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the As per the averments made in the petition, it has been pleaded that the of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no complainant party in connivance with the police. It is asserted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the cogent or reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family been roped in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family ed in due to extraneous considerations arising out of an inter se family property dispute. property dispute.
It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of It is further averred that the FIR was registered on the statement of Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against Kavita, wife of the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled against TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- -2024 (O&M) -2- , his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The Mahinder Singh, his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The , his son Abhishek (the present petitioner) and Reeta. The Mahinder Singh prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in accused persons allegedly attacked Sonu with agricultural implements, resulting in to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at his death. However, according to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at to the petitioner, the complainant was not present at his death. However, according the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and the FIR was lodged after deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. deliberations, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version.
investigation, the mother It is further pleaded that during the course of investigation, the mother It is further pleaded that during the course of It is further pleaded that during the course of of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency of the petitioner was found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father and ultimately challan was presented only against the petitioner and his father ence has been Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of offence has been Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of off Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that no weapon of off recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the recovered from him and no specific role has been attributed to him except on the basis of omnibus allegations. basis of omnibus allegations.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. n a serious offence punishable It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence punishable It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved i It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved i under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned under Section 302 IPC and the allegations against him are grave in nature. Learned State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out State counsel has contended that the offence relates to a brutal murder arising out cifically named in the FIR. of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been spe of a property dispute and that the petitioner has been spe It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not It is further argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the supported the case at this stage, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the e led.
Learned petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to be led. Learned petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to b petitioner on bail, as the remaining prosecution evidence is yet to b State counsel has also submitted that there is every State counsel has als likelihood of the petitioner o submitted that there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial if he is released on bail and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
nt bail petition, this Court had During the pendency of the present bail petition, this Court had During the pendency of the prese During the pendency of the prese directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material directed the prosecution to ensure recording of the statements of two material TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- -2024 (O&M) -3- witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In witnesses before the learned trial Court, namely Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh.
In owever, the compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW-5. However, the compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW compliance thereof, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar as PW said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not Even during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not Even during his cross support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namely support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namel support the prosecution version in any manner.
The other material witness, namel support the prosecution version in any manner. The other material witness, namel witness and also happens to be the father Shyam Singh, who is stated to be an eye-witness and also happens to be the father witness and also happens to be the father Shyam Singh, who is stated to be an eye of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best of the deceased, has failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite best efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial efforts. This fact stands duly reflected in the report received from the learned trial Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two material witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided prosecution case, and the other, despite being a crucial witness, has avoided e prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have entering the witness box, the prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have e prosecution case, at this stage, appears to have entering the witness box, th suffered a serious dent.
This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the suffered a serious dent. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a by keeping the petitioner behind the slow pace. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the by keeping the petitioner behind the slow pace. No useful purpose would be served bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose.
Without supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without supporting the prosecution or are not coming forward to depose. Without t is of the considered expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Cour expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Cour view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
Operative part
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing onds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial onds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial adequate bail b Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38814- -2024 (O&M) -4- observed hereinabove shall be construed as an of bail in any manner. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an observed hereinabove shall be construed as an of bail in any manner. Nothing expression on the merits of the case. expression on the merits of the case.
Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. January 14, 2026 6 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 302, 323.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 14 Jan 2026. The bench was MANDEEP PANNU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.