CRM-M/19683/2026 of ARYAN ALIAS BABA (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER SUNDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-19683- 2026 and CRM-M-30942-2026 as these are arising out of same FIR. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-19683-2026.

2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (corresponding Section 439 of Cr.P.C) in case FIR No.265 dated 11.07.2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61 of the BNS Act, 2023 (corresponding Section 302,120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code-1860) and Section 25 of Arms Act-1959 registered at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonipat, Haryana.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2024, the complainant, Ankush son of Jaipal, made a statement alleging that at about 8:30 A.M., his father, Jaipal, left home on his motorcycle for Gohana. At RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh around 9:30 A.M., he received information that 2–3 boys had murdered his father by firing gunshots at him. Subsequently, after watching a video of the incident, the complainant made a supplementary statement wherein he specifically named the persons alleged to have been involved in the commission of the murder. It is further alleged that petitioner Aryan, in con- spiracy with the co-accused, hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and ac- tively conducted surveillance (reiki) for the execution of the said conspiracy. According to the prosecution, when co-accused Devender fired at Jaipal while he was riding his motorcycle and the deceased attempted to run for cover, petitioner Aryan caught hold of him, thereby enabling the assailants to fire further shots which resulted in his death. During investigation, a motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of petitioner Aryan. So far as petitioner Kulbir is concerned, the allegation is that on 11.07.2024, he, along with co-accused Lokesh and Aryan, kept surveillance over the movements of the deceased, informed the other accused that Jaipal had left his house, and followed him on a motorcycle. It is further alleged, on the basis of his disclosure statement, that co-accused Devender handed over to him a country-made pistol along with two live cartridges and instructed him to fire in the air if anyone intervened during the occurrence. Thereafter, co-accused Devender and Ankit allegedly arrived at the spot on a Splendor motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence. Learned RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh counsel for petitioner Aryan submits that he is a minor, has no previous enmity or grudge with the complainant or the deceased, and, therefore, there was no motive for him to participate in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the principal allegation of causing the fatal firearm injuries is against co-accused Devender, who is alleged to have fired the shots, and no such overt act is attributed to petitioner Aryan. Learned counsel for petitioner Kulbir submits that the alleged recovery of a country-made firearm along with two live cartridges from him is wholly planted and has no nexus with the petitioner, and that he has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion and his alleged association with one Aman, who was residing at the farmhouse of co-accused Devender. It is further submitted that co-accused Lokesh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioners are in custody since 11.07.2024, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and are in custody since their arrest. He further submits that out of 41 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, and, therefore, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage.

7. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

8. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that petitioner-Kulbir is not alleged to have directly participated in the occurrence and is stated to have been kept as a “backup plan”, whereas petitioner-Aryan was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence coupled with the fact that the petitioners have remained in custody for about 02 years and 02 months and, out of 41 prosecution cited witnesses, none has been examined so far, this Court is of the considered view that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners incarcerated for an indefinite period.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioners are found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of their bail.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.09.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh