CRM-M/40928/2026 of SUNNY KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026

1. The present petition is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 261 dated 21.05.2023, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 333, 351(2), 103, 238 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023), at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1).

2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Pala Ram @ Pola, resident of Village Bani, regarding an occurrence dated 16.05.2023 at about 9:00/9:30 p.m. It was alleged that an altercation took place in the street of Village Bani, during which Dulla Ram, Ganesh, Richhpal, Vishal, Vikas, Hardeep and Happy, armed with baton/sticks, rods and other weapons, allegedly assaulted the complainant's nephew Ram Sharan. Ram Sharan allegedly ran towards his house, where the aforesaid assailants followed him and entered the house and continued to inflict injuries upon him. It is specifically alleged that Dulla Ram inflicted an iron Toki blow on the head of Ram Sharan, whereafter the other accused KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh allegedly caused injuries to him. It is further the prosecution case that, during the second round of the occurrence, Virender, Pawan, Chhinda Ram, Rajat and Alisher, along with the other accused, allegedly came to the house of Ram Sharan armed with weapons. Virender allegedly exhorted the assailants to kill Ram Sharan and his family, whereafter they entered the house. Alisher allegedly gave an iron rod blow towards Pala Ram, which landed on his hand when he attempted to save himself. The assailants thereafter allegedly entered the house of Mansa Ram, where they allegedly inflicted injuries upon him. On the arrival of persons from the neighbourhood and family members, the assailants allegedly fled from the spot while extending threats. Mansa Ram, who had sustained injuries in the occurrence, was taken to the hospital along with Pala Ram and Ram Sharan. During the course of treatment, Mansa Ram succumbed to his injuries on 23.05.2023, pursuant to which the offence under Section 302 IPC, corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, was added to the FIR. The offences under Sections 325 and 201 IPC were also subsequently added. As regards the present petitioner Sunny Kumar, he was allegedly implicated subsequently during investigation on the basis of his disclosure statement recorded on 18.12.2025, i.e. more than two years after registration of the FIR. As per the prosecution, Sunny Kumar disclosed that he had informed his friend/co-accused Rishi @ Monu and other associates regarding an earlier quarrel involving his maternal uncle Dulla Ram, pursuant to which the said co-accused allegedly went to the spot and participated in the occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any specific role attributed to him by the complainant in the initial version. The occurrence took place on 16.05.2023, whereas the petitioner was implicated only on 18.12.2025, i.e. after more than two-and-a-half years, solely on the basis of his alleged disclosure statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence and no overt act of assault, use of weapon or causing of any injury to the deceased Mansa Ram, complainant Pala Ram or Ram Sharan has been attributed to him. It is argued that the entire case against the petitioner, even if taken at its highest, is confined to an alleged role in conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC/Section 61(2) BNS. 3.2 It is further submitted that the alleged disclosure statement made by the petitioner before the police cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence against him, except to the limited extent permissible under law regarding discovery of a fact. There is no independent corroborative material connecting Sunny Kumar with the commission of the substantive offence. No weapon of offence or other incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The mobile phone allegedly produced by him is also a matter of appreciation of evidence during trial and does not, by itself, establish his involvement in the alleged murder. 3.3 Learned counsel submits that co-accused having more serious and direct roles have already been granted bail, including those who are alleged to have inflicted injuries upon the deceased and other injured persons with weapons. Therefore, the petitioner, against whom no specific overt act has been attributed and whose alleged role is confined to conspiracy, is entitled to KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh the concession of bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that the investigation stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation or any further recovery. The trial involves a number of witnesses and is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Continued incarceration of the petitioner, particularly when he has already remained in custody since 18.12.2025, would amount to pre-trial punishment.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 25.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 08 months and 07 days.

6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to the death of Mansa Ram. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged criminal conspiracy and the material collected during investigation, including his disclosure statement and the mobile phone allegedly produced by him, requires appreciation during trial. He further submits that there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses.

7. Be that as it may, considering the rival submissions and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.12.2025 and has already undergone custody of about 08 months and 07 days. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh surfaced during investigation after a lapse of more than two-and-a-half years from the date of occurrence, whereafter he was arrested on the basis of alleged disclosure statement. The allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with the co-accused and instigated them to commit the alleged offence; however, there is no allegation that the petitioner himself participated in the actual commission of the offence, caused any injury to the deceased or used any weapon. The investigation already stands concluded and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. The trial is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence and, out of 29 prosecution witnesses cited, none has yet been examined. Thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Further, the co-accused attributed with more direct and active roles in the occurrence have already been granted the concession of bail, and the case of the petitioner, whose alleged role is confined to conspiracy, stands on a comparatively different footing. The petitioner, therefore, deserves consideration on the ground of parity as well. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose

8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 27.08.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh