Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/31775/2026 of VIKAS @ GAMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 26 August 2026
2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2222 deceased Sahil Bisht, were residing in rented accommodation arranged by owner of the Dhaba at Shahzadpur. In the night of 13.08.2025, after closing the Dhaba, at 11:00 p.m. deceased Sahil Bisht left for the rented accommodation. He
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-31775 of 2026 (O&M)
deceased Sahil Bisht, were residing in rented accommodation arranged by owner of the Dhaba at Shahzadpur. In the night of 13.08.2025, after closing the Dhaba, at 11:00 p.m. deceased Sahil Bisht left for the rented accommodation. He returned after sometime holding his chest and disclosed that when he reached near Shahzadpur turn on National Highway, four unknown persons riding two motorcycles intercepted him and one of them inflicted a knife blow on his chest. He further disclosed that the assailants robbed him of his cash and thereafter fled. Injured was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. FIR was registered against unknown persons. Postmortem examination of the deceased was done in Civil Hospital, Ambala City. On the basis of secret information, petitioner Vikas @ Gama and co-accused Sagar Rana were identified as suspects, interrogated and arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. During further investigation, Rahul and ‘M’ were identified as participants in the occurrence and arrested. Separate proceedings were initiated against ‘M’, a child in conflict with law. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, recovery of Rs.1500/- was effected from the accused-petitioner. Petitioner also identified the place of occurrence as well as the place where the knife was allegedly washed. On completion of investigation, challan was presented.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody for the last one year. He was not named in the FIR and was arrested on secret information. The only evidence collected by the prosecution was disclosure statement of petitioner besides recovery of Rs.1500/- and his mobile phone. Petitioner was a young 19 years old, student of BCA final REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-31775 of 2026 (O&M)
year and considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail conceding that the only evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner was the disclosure statements of co-accused and the petitioner and recovery of Rs.1500/-.
5. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner has been arrested on the basis of secret information. He is alleged to have got recovered Rs.1500/- being his share of the robbed amount besides his own mobile phone. Although the veracity and evidentiary value of the disclosure statements recorded by the Investigating agency would be determined at final stage, considering entire evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner, the fact that he has no criminal antecedents as also the fact that only 3, out of 35 witnesses, stand examined, petitioner who is incarcerated for about 1 year, deserves the benefit of regular bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 26.08.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI