CRM-M/27551/2026 of BINDER Vs STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH on 20 July 2026

::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115+226

CRM-M-27551-2026 Date of Decision:-20.07.2026

BINDER

......PETITIONER

VS. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh, with

Mr. Dixit Bhardwaj, Advocate,

Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate,

Ms. Sarasmi Budhiraja, Advocate.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The prayer in this first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.156 dated 31.12.2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118, 109, 103, 333, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Gaurav @ Bharat and reads as under:- “Statement of Gaurav @ Bharat son of Maan Singh, resident of Jhugi No.210, DBC Sector 25, Chandigarh, age 25 years. Stated that I live with my family at the above mentioned address and do private work. About 10-15 days ago, my maternal uncle Shubham @Subhi and I had an argument with Rohit @ Golu mukhbar and Deep, residents of our colony, over some old issue. Then Rohit @ Golu Mukhbar and Deep had threatened us and said that whenever on any day you both would met us together at the right occasion, we will KUSUM

::2::

finish you both off. We did not give much importance to this and did not tell anyone. On dated 30.12.2024, I went to my maternal uncle Shubham @Totla's house to celebrate his daughter Priyanshi's birthday, where Shubham @Subhi, my brother-in-law Sahil and my cousin Sawan @ Goldy were also present there. After this all five of us went to my maternal uncle Shubham @ Subhi's House No.2461, Sector 25, Chandigarh for a party and the rest of the family members were in another house. At around 9:30 pm when all five of us were partying at home, partying at suddenly Rohit Golu @ Mukhbar, Deep, Binder, Rahul and their 2-3 other companions from our colony came having armed with knives, axes, swords and knives etc. in their hands and forcibly entered in the house. As soon as Rohit Golu @ mukhbar saw my maternal uncle Shubham @ Subhi and me, he shouted and said that you both have come together today, today we will kill you and if anyone comes in between, he too will not survive. As soon as my maternal uncle Shubham @ Subhi stood up, Rohit @Golu mukhbar, with the intention of killing him, stabbed my maternal uncle Shubham @ Subhi's chest directly with the knife in his hand, due to which he fell down on the spot. After that Deep, Binder, Rahul and their companions attacked all of us with their weapons like axes, knives and swords, etc. due to which all of us got injured. I have got injuries in my waist and thigh, and Sawan @ Goldy and Sahil have got injuries in their waist. After attacking, Rohit @ Golu mukhbar and his companions threatened to kill us and ran away from there with their weapons. Hearing our noise, someone called the police and the people nearby admitted us in GH-16 Chandigarh for treatment. Rohit @ Golu mukhbar, Deep, Binder, Rahul and 2-3 other companions of them have carried out a deadly attack on us and has killed my maternal uncle Shubham @ Subhi, and we received serious injuries. I can identify all these boys in front of the police station. Legal action should be taken against KUSUM

::3::

them. I have got written the statement, I have heard it, it is correct. Sd/- Gaurav.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery has been effected from him on his arrest. Therefore, his case is different from that of Rahul whose petition was withdrawn vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-54699-2025. As the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2025 but only 08 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Rahul. An attempt is being made to mislead the Court, inasmuch as the recovery of a sword has been effected from the petitioner. Therefore, as the petitioner is one of the accused persons who assaulted the deceased, he is not entitled to the concession of bail as prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. A bare perusal of the FIR would prima facie established that the petitioner along with Rahul, Rohit Golu @ Mukhbar, Deep and their 2-3 other companions were variously armed with axes, swords and knives, entered into the house and committed the murder of Shubham @ Subhi. Pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner, the recovery of a sword has been effected from him. KUSUM

::4::

7. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the question of granting bail to the petitioner does not arise, particularly when he is an accused in seven other cases.

8. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed.

9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

JUDGE 20.07.2026 kusum

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

KUSUM