Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/36606/2026 of MANUJ RASTOGI Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 9 July 2026
of 2026 (O&M) and half of face. The masked assailant fled and left the pistol in the street. Legal action was prayed for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown person and no proper identification of the shooter, who had been arrested by the police,
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-36606 of 2026 (O&M) and half of face. The masked assailant fled and left the pistol in the street. Legal action was prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown person and no proper identification of the shooter, who had been arrested by the police, was done. There was no evidence collected by the police regarding enmity between the petitioner and the complainant. Petitioner was alleged to be in illicit relationship with wife of complainant’s brother and it was highly improbable that he would employ a contract killer to shoot the complainant. The complainant had orchestrated the FIR, which was false and fabricated. There was no money trail established nor motive to commit the offence was proved. The FIR was an outcome of business rivalry of the petitioner with complainant’s brother, as both were in the business of jewellery. There was complete absence of mens era. No facts were mentioned in the FIR and in the circumstances, the petitioner, who had clean antecedents and was ready and willing to join investigation, deserved the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and on instruction from ASI Vikas, submits that petitioner was the main offender, who employed a contract killer Vivek Tripathi to shoot the complainant, on account of his wife’s relationship with brother of complainant. In the attack, complainant lost his left eye and was seriously injured. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for recovery of his mobile phone and to elicit facts regarding motive. Learned counsel for the complainant adds that petitioner, as per disclosure statement of co- accused, paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the contract killer for shooting the REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-36606 of 2026 (O&M) complainant. Police had also collected call detail records, showing exchange of calls between the petitioner and the contract killer. Complainant suffered serious injuries and he lost his left eye in the incident. In view of the nature of allegations, petitioner did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. Allegations against the petitioner are serious. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. Personal liberty of an individual has to be balanced with interest of the society as also the prosecution. Petitioner has to be questioned regarding the motive of offence and recoveries are to be made. Grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, would adversely affect the process of investigation. No exceptional grounds are made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 09.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI