CRM-M/17734/2026 of VIKAS ALIAS KASHI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 2026

1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail pending trial in connection with FIR No. 401 dated 11.07.2024, registered under Sections 103(1) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (subsequently converted to Section 61(2) of the BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (corresponding to Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar (now District Hansi).

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.07.2024, the Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station City, Hansi, received

-:2:- telephonic information regarding a firing incident involving one Ravinder Saini. Upon receipt of the information, the Investigating Officer, accompanied by the police party, reached the spot. At the scene, Constable Jagdeep, who had been deputed as the Personal Security Officer (PSO) of Ravinder Saini, disclosed that at about 6:00 P.M., he and Ravinder Saini were present in the latter's motorcycle agency when Ravinder Saini received a telephone call and stepped outside the showroom. Within a couple of minutes, the witness allegedly heard gunshots and rushed outside, where he found Ravinder Saini lying face down in an adjoining vacant plot with bleeding injuries, while three unidentified young men were seen fleeing the spot on a motorcycle.

2.1. In the meantime, Deepanshu, son of the deceased, along with other persons, reached the spot and shifted Ravinder Saini to the Government Hospital, Hansi, where he was declared brought dead. The witness further stated that Ravinder Saini had earlier informed him that one Vikas @ Vicky Nindana, who had previously fired at his agency and had been convicted in that case, had extended threats to his life, owing to which police protection had been provided to him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, several accused persons were arrested and, upon completion of investigation, the final report under Section 193 BNSS came to be presented before the competent Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that

-:3:- no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession. It is contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, was not present at the place of occurrence, and his alleged involvement rests solely on the allegation of criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel further submits that the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence have already been recovered from the co-accused and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner.

3.1. It is further argued that out of 51 prosecution witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined thus far, and the material eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. It is also pointed out that after completion of investigation, the challan has been presented against 14 accused persons, namely, Vikas, Yogi Shivnath, Parveen son of Naina Ram, Parveen son of Jaibir, Ravinder, Mandeep, Sandeep, Taruna, Mamta, Vikas son of Nar Singh, Mangat Ram, Yogesh, Sumit and Manish. Out of them, two accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, four co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court, while five other accused have already been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 07.08.2024, and in view of the prolonged incarceration, the sluggish progress of the trial and the parity available with the co-accused, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.

4. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

4.1. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that having regard to the nature, gravity

-:4:- and seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged criminal conspiracy, and the manner in which the offence is stated to have been committed, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie evaluation of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is alleged to be the principal conspirator behind the commission of the present offence. The prosecution case attributes to him the motive of eliminating the deceased, Ravinder Saini, on account of prior criminal proceedings initiated by the deceased against the petitioner, which culminated in his conviction. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the murder was orchestrated at the instance of the petitioner as an act of vengeance.

5.1. The status report further reveals that the petitioner is involved in 29 other criminal cases, reflecting a consistent pattern of criminal conduct. Besides, he is also a previous convict in FIR No. 135 dated 18.03.2018, registered under Sections 323, 341, 34 and 379 IPC at Police Station City Tosham. Thus, the petitioner cannot be treated as a first-time offender.

5.2. Keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the criminal antecedents reflected in the status report, the prima facie motive alleged by the prosecution, and the likelihood of the petitioner's influencing witnesses or obstructing the fair course of trial if enlarged on bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of the concession of regular bail

-:5:- is made out. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during trial, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

6. In view of the final adjudication of the present petition, all pending miscellaneous or ancillary applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, having been rendered infructuous. No separate orders are called for in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 21.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No