High Court · 2026

Judgment

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh uraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for g for grant of regular bail in case ar

ase arising out of FIR No.73 dated

04.05.2023 reg 23 registered under Sections 148, 14 7 of 48, 149, 285, 323, 302, 379, 427 of IPC and Secti Section 25 of Arms Act (Section 32 1 of ion 324, 325, 326, 341, 506, 201 of IPC added lat ed later on and Section 285 and 42 n) at nd 427 of IPC deleted later on) at Police Station tation Dhand, District Kaithal.

2. The aforementioned FIR was r of a was registered on the basis of a written statem statement submitted by the complaina plainant, Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew S hew Sitaram @ Satish was engaged gaged in the business of property dealing in part in partnership with one Parveen, broth , brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered istered in the year 2019 on the compla er @ omplaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 71357-2025 (O&M) 2 Gogi at Police Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram aram @ Satish had been providing assistance to J ce to Jitender @ Gogi. The members ng of mbers of the rival party consisting of Ranjit Singh @ ingh @ Marku, Rahul and Baljeet ha sh to jeet had been pressurizing Satish to not to help the above-named Jitender @ r @ Gogi, and another case was registered agai d against them as they had committed p on mitted the murder of one Sandeep on

02.07.2019. H

19. He alleged that on 18.04.2023 .2023, his nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram had accompanied Rahul to the Dis a, to he District Courts, Kurukshetra, to attend the hea he hearing of the case of murder o time, rder of Sandeep, and at that time, accused Ranjit Ranjit Singh @ Marku, Rahul and Par nd Parveen had proclaimed that they would get the et the victim killed. He further allege alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet h meet his brother Ramdiya and when h when he left the house of his brother and had reach reached near the corner of the stree Sita e street, he saw that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish Satish was standing outside his sco scorpio vehicle and was having conversation w ation with someone on his mobile pho phone. At the same time, accused Kapil, Mande andeep and Anmol reached there accompanied by one unknown person and and were seen rushing towards ctim. ards the vehicle of the victim. Simultaneousl neously, accused Baljeet @ Kala and la and Ajay Rathore along with one unknown pers n person reached there and they dama f the y damaged the window panes of the vehicle of the of the complainant. Accused Anmo Anmol @ Sunny threw red chilly powder in the in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alar ed alarm and rushed towards the rear seat of the veh he vehicle, however, he was assaulted saulted by the assailants who caused injuries to him to him with the weapons carried by th y them. Rescue alarm was raised by the compla omplainant and Kapil. However, the , the assailants fired three shots with a pistol upon upon the victim and then fled away. away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 71357-2025 (O&M) 3 succumbed to ed to the injuries. After registratio istration of the FIR, investigation proceedings w ings were initiated. Post-mortem exam examination of the dead body was conducted.

3. As per the further allegations, the ns, the accused Mandeep @ Mandu and Anmol @ ol @ Sunny were arrested on 06.05.2 6.05.2023. They suffered disclosure statements on ts on the basis of which, Vikas @ B . the s @ Budli, Abhay @ Abhi i.e. the present petitio petitioner and some other co-accused cused were nominated as additional accused. The . The present petitioner was arrested rrested on 10.05.2023. He suffered disclosure sta re statement admitting that he alon jit, e alongwith the co-accused Baljit, Anmol, Mand Mandeep and Vikas had hatched a f the ed a conspiracy for murder of the victim. In pu In pursuance of that conspiracy, they , they had done recce of deceased Sitaram @ Satish. On the night of 03.0 f 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the conspiracy and cy and as per instructions of Mandeep ndeep, he had remained present near the liquor ven or vend of the victim Satish and whe n his d when Satish left his office in his scorpio vehicl vehicle, he had given intimation abo n about the said fact to co-accused Ajay who had ho had subsequently killed the victim victim. Investigation now stands completed and ed and the petitioner alongwith the l for h the co-accused is facing trial for commission of sion of aforementioned offences.

4. It is argued by learned counsel unsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely im sely implicated in this case. He was n was not named in the FIR. He was only present esent at the spot of occurrence an nce and has not played any role whatsoever. T ver. The allegations that he had hatch d hatched a conspiracy are false and no evidence ence has been collected in this r this regard. The ingredients for AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 71357-2025 (O&M) 4 commission o sion of offence punishable under Sect er Section 120B of IPC are also not attracted qua h qua him. He has clean antecedents ver a edents. He is in custody for over a period of 02 f 02 years and 09 months. Similar imilarly situated co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Mar Marku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ S e l @ Sunny and Rahul Pawar have already been been extended benefit of bail by th by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to b to be extended the same benefit. s of enefit. There are no chances of conclusion of on of trial in the near future. His pro itates is prolonged incarceration militates against his f his fundamental rights guaranteed ranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to release him on bail. It is, ther tition is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel ounsel while relying upon the status report has arg as argued that the allegations agains us in against the petitioner are serious in nature as by s by hatching a conspiracy with the e the ith the co-accused to eliminate the victim, he ha he had done recce of the deceased ceased on the fateful day thereby facilitating mu murder of the victim by the co-accu f his accused. There are chances of his absconding or ing or intimidating the witnesses, if e It is, es, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stres e, stressed that the petition does not de not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival s rival submissions made by learned counsel for bo for both the parties at considerable len ble length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to be a d by be a part of conspiracy hatched by the co-accuse accused to eliminate the victim and , the m and as per the allegations, the petitioner had r had done recce of the deceased on t d on the fateful night and had given AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 71357-2025 (O&M) 5 information a tion about his activities/whereabouts abouts to the assailants, who had committed the ed the murder of the victim. The pe n the he petitioner was not named in the FIR and has b s been made co-accused subseque f the bsequently only on the basis of the disclosure stat re statements of the co-accused Man ct of Mandeep and Anmol. The act of doing recce of cce of the victim and passing of infor s has information to the perpetrators has been attributed ributed to him. The petitioner is not al f the not alleged to be the assailant of the victim. Takin Taking into consideration the natur nature of the accusations levelled against him a him and the role attributed to him, m in him, the period spent by him in custody, the , the fact that the trial still likely e to ikely to take considerable time to conclude as on e as only 02 out of 33 prosecution wit ed so on witnesses have been examined so far, coupled w pled with the fact that the complaina s the plainant Pyara Singh who was the main material aterial witness of the case has turned f the turned hostile, this Court is of the considered op ed opinion that the petitioner dese bail. r deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, ngly, the petition is allowed and th o be and the petitioner is ordered to be released on ba on bail subject to his furnishing perso ds to g personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfactio sfaction of the learned trial Court/C Duty ourt/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate con ate concerned.

8. In the event of there being any g any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, ioner, it shall be open to the responden g an ondent to seek redressal by filing an application see ion seeking cancellation of bail.

9. It is made clear that any observat servation made herein above is only for the purpos urpose of deciding the present petitio e no petition and the same shall have no bearing on the on the merits of the case. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7135 71357-2025 (O&M) 6

10. Since the main petition has been tion, s been allowed, pending application, if any, is rende s rendered infructuous.

25.02.2026 Amit Sharma ned:- Yes/No (cid:1) Whether speaking/reasoned: (cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) JUDGE(cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.25 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.