CRM-M/46437/2026 of MANDEEP @ MANDHU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. T 483 of Bhara grant of regu registered und 212 and 120B Station Dhand

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH C @ MANDHU

Versus HARYANA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA e date when the judgment is reser e date when the judgment is pron e date when the judgment is uplo bsite ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full judg nounced e delay, if any, of the pronouncem gment and reasons thereof. Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Dalal, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryan *** BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ular bail in case arising out of der Sections 148, 149, 323, 379, B of IPC added later on) and Se d, District Kaithal.

B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-46437-2026 (O&M)

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA rved 08.09.2026 nounced 10.09.2026 aded on the 10.09.2026 udgment is gment is Full ment of full Not applicable petitioner na d by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for f FIR No.73 dated 04.05.2023 302, 427, 285 of IPC (Sections ection 25 of Arms Act at Police

n r

s e AMIT SHARMA

2. T complaint sub nephew Sitara partnership w registered in th at Police Stati to Jitender @ @ Marku, Rah help the abov against them 02.07.2019. H had accompan hearing of the Singh @ Mark victim killed. brother Ramd near the corne standing outs someone on h the present p unknown pers towards the ve Rathore along window panes

The aforementioned FIR was reg bmitted by the complainant-P am @ Satish was engaged in the with one Parveen, brother of J he year 2019 on the complaint o on Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satis Gogi. The members of the rival hul and Baljeet @ Kala, had be ve-named Jitender @ Gogi, an as they had committed the He alleged that on 18.04.2023, hi nied Rahul to the District Cou e case of murder of Sandeep, a ku, Rahul and Parveen had proc He further alleged that on 03.05 iya and when he left the house er of the street, he saw that the side his scorpio vehicle and w is mobile phone. At the same tim petitioner and Anmol reached son, carrying weapons in their ehicle of the victim. Simultaneo g with one unknown person reach s of the vehicle of the complain

gistered on the basis of a written Pyara Singh, alleging that his e business of property dealing in Jitender @ Gogi. A case was of the aforesaid Jitender @ Gogi h had been providing assistance party consisting of Ranjit Singh een pressurizing Satish to not to nd another case was registered murder of one Sandeep on s nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram urts, Kurukshetra, to attend the and at that time, accused Ranjit claimed that they would get the 5.2023, he had gone to meet his of his brother and had reached victim Sita Ram @ Satish was was having conversation with me, accused Kapil, Mandeep i.e. d there, accompanied by one hands, and were seen rushing ously, Baljeet @ Kala and Ajay hed there and they damaged the nant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny n s n s i e h o d n m e t e s d s h . e g y e y AMIT SHARMA

threw red chil towards the r assailants, who petitioner told proceedings o today. Rescue assailants fired The victim Sit the FIR, inves of the dead bo

3. A Anmol @ Su statements adm Ranjeet, Abhi Ajay and Vik additional accu of the victim. suffered disclo with co-accuse for murder of of deceased Si conspiracy an near the liquor scorpio vehicl lly powder in the eyes of Sita R rear seat of the vehicle, howe o caused injuries to him with th d the other assailants to teach him of the Court in others cases and e alarm was raised by the compl d three shots with a pistol upon taram @ Satish succumbed to th stigation proceedings were initi ody was conducted. As per the further allegations, the unny were arrested on 07.05.2 mitting their involvement in th i, Aman, Akash @ Kashi, Rajin kas @ Budli and some other used. The petitioner disclosed th Co-accused Abhay @ Abhi w osure statement admitting that h ed Anmol, Baljeet @ Kala and the victim. In pursuance of that itaram @ Satish. On the night of d as per instructions of the petit r vend of the victim Satish and w le, he had given intimation abo

am. He raised alarm and rushed ever, he was assaulted by the e weapons carried by them. The m lesson for handling (pairvi) the d he should not be escaped live lainant and Kapil. However, the n the victim and then fled away. he injuries. After registration of iated. Post-mortem examination e petitioner, Baljeet @ Kala and 2023. They suffered disclosure he crime on the basis of which, nder @ Jinder, Baljeet @ Kala, co-accused were nominated as hat accused Abhi had done recce was arrested on 10.05.2023. He he alongwith the petitioner along Vikas had hatched a conspiracy conspiracy, they had done recce f 03.05.2023 in pursuance of the tioner, he had remained present when Satish left his office in his out the said fact to co-accused d e e e e e . f n d e , , s e e g y e e t s d AMIT SHARMA

Ajay who ha completed an commission of

4. It falsely implica petitioner is in by detaining h conclude as on far. The ey implicated the offences and h allegations of Singh @ Mark extended bene urged that the released on ba

5. L allegations ag hatched a con the victim was the petitioner teach him a le extended bene ad subsequently killed the vic d the petitioner alongwith the f aforementioned offences. t is argued by learned counsel fo ated in this case. No recovery h n custody since 07.05.2023. No him in custody anymore. Trial nly 05 out of 32 prosecution wi ye-witnesses Pyara Singh-com e petitioner or the co-accused in have turned hostile. There is n assaulting the victim. The co- ku, Aman Kumar, Anmol @ Sun efit of bail. Principle of parity w petition deserves to be allowed ail. Learned State counsel has ar gainst the petitioner. The petiti nspiracy to eliminate the victim s done. The window of the vehi with iron hammer and he has a sson. His case is different from efit of bail. There are chances o

ctim. Investigation now stands co-accused is facing trial for or the petitioner that he has been has been effected from him. The useful purpose would be served l will take considerable time to itnesses have been examined so mplainant and Kapil have not n the commission of the subject no material to link him with the accused Baljeet @ Kala, Ranjit nny and Rahul Pawar have been weighs in his favour. Hence, it is and the petitioner deserve to be rgued that there are serious ioner alongwith the co-accused and on his instructions recce of icle of the victim was broken by also exhorted the co-accused to m the co-accused, who have been of his absconding or committing

s r n e d o o t t e t n s e s d f y o n g AMIT SHARMA

similar offenc petition does n

6. T counsel for the

7. T co-accused to of that conspir the fateful da witnesses, com before the lear record certifie Singh is show assailants as th that he has no accused. This examined by same stand, th against him. F being a co-vi petitioner nor hostile and cr Taking into c record in the complainant a ces, if extended benefit of bail. I not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival e parties. The petitioner is alleged to have eliminate the victim Sitaram @ racy, that the victim had been ki ay. The petitioner was named i mplainant-Pyara Singh and Ka rned trial Court. Learned counsel ed copies of testimonies of these wn to have stated that on the fa here was no light, and the street ot seen the petitioner causing in s witness had been declared ho learned public prosecutor but is hereby exonerating the petitioner Further, eye-witness Kapil depo illager, he knew the petitioner the co-accused committed any ross-examined, however, he fir consideration the nature of the form of testimonies of the m and eye-witness Kapil, the per

It is, therefore, stressed that the submissions made by learned e hatched a conspiracy with the @ Satish and it was in pursuance lled by firing shots upon him on in the FIR. However, the eye- apil have since been examined l for the petitioner has placed on e witnesses. Complainant-Pyara ateful day, he could not see the t was dark. Further, he deposed njuries to the victim and the co- ostile and allowed to be cross s shown to have maintained the r from the allegations as levelled osed before the Trial Court that, r and affirmed that neither the offence. He was also declared rmly adhered to the testimony. evidence which has come on most material witnesses i.e. the riod spent by the petitioner in

e d e e n - d n a e d - s e d , e d n e n AMIT SHARMA

custody and th the considered release on bai petitioner is personal/surety Judicial Magis

8. It for the purpos bearing on the

9. S any, is rendere

10.09.2026 Amit Sharma he attendant facts and circumstan d opinion that the petitioner ha il in his favour. Accordingly, t ordered to be released on b y bonds to the satisfaction of strate/ Duty Magistrate concerne t is made clear that any observa se of deciding the present petiti e merits of the case. Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. ( Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No

nces of the case, this Court is of as made out a case for grant of the petition is allowed and the bail subject to his furnishing f the learned trial Court/Chief ed. ation made herein above is only ion and the same shall have no allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

f f e g f y o f AMIT SHARMA