CRM-M/15375/2026 of SUMIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 16 July 2026

1. This petition has been under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR no 414, dated 24.10.2024, Police station Gohana sadar, District Sonipat U/S 103 (1),115,126,190,191(3) and 61 of BNS 2023 (Corresponding Section 302,323,341,149,148,120B of IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, committed the murder of the deceased, Naseeb. It is alleged that the petitioner was armed with a wooden bitta at the time of the occurrence and participated in the commission of the offence. During the course of investigation, the said wooden bitta, allegedly used in the crime, was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that, apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no other material available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. He also submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.12.2024 and, therefore, prays that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has filed the short reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 08 months and 16 days and is involved in one more case but has been released on bail. He further submits that out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses only 08 has been examined so far.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh in the case in hand, apart from the disclosure statement there is no corroborated evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 08 months and 16 days coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

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

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of hi bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 16.07.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh