Rakesh v. State of Haryana

IN Rakesh

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶12023 seek No.333 d Sections Section 2 later on) Matlauda

¶2Bhim Sin Matlauda A dispute Baba. In o the compl THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

V/s Haryana

decision: 07.07.2026 Uploading : 07.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate Mr. Naveen Nandal, Advoca Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Ha Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been fi king grant of regular bail to th dated 10.10.2025, registered fo 109(1), 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3 5 of the Arms Act and Sections and Sections 190, 191(3) of , District Panipat. The gravamen of the FIR re ngh has alleged that he was hav and stated that his son namely S e had arisen between Ajit and order to settle the dispute, a Panc lainant on 09.10.2025. During th

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-16744-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL e with ate for the petitioner. aryana. for the complainant. iled under Section 483 of BNS he petitioner in case bearing F or the offences punishable und 3), 333, 351(3) of BNS read w 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (add BNS (deleted) at Police Stati flects that the complainant nam ving Shop No.35 at Grain Mark Shubham was a close friend of A co-accused Jitender Kumar al chayat was convened at the shop he course of such meeting, accus

SS, FIR der with ded ely ket, Ajit. lias p of

-Jitender K and other the first complaina Vikas wi Jitender K Thereafte meantime upon whi taken to h registered to addition

¶3petitioner counsel h petitioner accused S contended attributed of the bod weapon h evidence w deceased. account o also been case rests Kumar Baba, Surender, Rakesh associates arrived at the spot. A floor of the shop, suddenly a ant has alleged that the accuse th a knife. When the compla Kumar Baba fired gunshot at hi r accused jitender Kumar fired m e, many shopkeepers/labourers a ich all the assailants/accused fle hospital. On these set of allegatio d. Subsequently, Vikas Kumar n of the offence of murder. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated in has further iterated that no specif r in the FIR in question and the Surender and Jitender Kumar Ba d that even as per the allegatio d to the petitioner is limited in na dy has been attributed to him. It has been recovered from the p which connects the petitioner wi According to learned counsel, of sudden altercation between tw n registered. It has been further upon ocular evidence and all th

(petitioner herein), Naveen, Mic As the discussions were going on a violent altercation ensued. T ed Surender had attacked Ajit a ainant tried to intervene, accus im which hit on his left should many gun shots upon them. In arrived at the scene of occurren ed from the spot. The injured w ons, the FIR in question came to succumbed to his injuries, leadi petitioner has iterated that nto the FIR in question. Learn fic injury has been attributed to e main allegations are against c aba respectively. It has been furth ons contained in the FIR, the r ature and no injury on any vital p has been further contended that petitioner and there is no foren ith the fatal injuries suffered by the incident in question arose wo groups and a cross-version h argued that the entire prosecuti he material evidence already stan

cky n at The and sed der. nce ere be ned co-her role part nsic on has

collected petitioner concluded Court of considera continued petitioner imposed b strength o

¶4petition b FIR with State coun deadly w complaina to reply d Superinte the petitio the occurr the accuse by the investigating agency. Le r is stated to be in custody sinc d and challan has already been jurisdiction. Since the conclus able time, therefore, no usefu d incarceration of the petitioner. I r undertakes to abide by all the by this Court while granting the of these submissions, the grant of Per contra, learned State by arguing that the petitioner h a clear and active role in the nsel, the petitioner is a part of weapons and has actively par ant which ultimately resulted in dated 20.05.2026, filed by way ndent of Police, Panipat-II, lear oner was a part of the unlawful a rence took place clearly demons ed persons, relevant whereof rea "4. Role of Petitioner:- He ac @ Sundar and others to Grain Panchayat/settlement meeting re and Jitender @ Baba. Before rea in discussions wherein it was companions did not apologize, th the altercation in the room above in the fight and admitted that he, Jeeta and Vicky Gujjar and kicke

earned counsel has pointed that ce 25.10.2025; investigation stan n presented before the compet sion of the trial is likely to ta ul purpose would be served It has been further asserted that terms and conditions that may e concession of regular bail. On f regular bail is entreated for. counsel has opposed the pres as been specifically named in occurrence. According to learn an unlawful assembly armed w rticipated in the assault on the death of one person. Referri of affidavit of Atma Ram, Depu rned State counsel has iterated t assembly and the manner in wh strates the common intention of ads as under: ccompanied Jitender @ Baba, Suren n Market, Matlauda for the propo elating to dispute between Ajit @ Je aching the spot, he allegedly participa decided that if Ajit @ Jeeta and hey would teach them a lesson. Dur e Shop No. 35, he allegedly participa along with others, caught hold of Ajit ked them. During the scuffle, co-accu

nds ent ake for be ent ned with uty hat ich f all nder osed eeta ated his ring ated t @

learned S investigat competen the specif for the dis

¶5perused th

¶6Court; ho principled the intere evaluate f the accuse the likely likelihood probabilit of the a Additiona and overa Court m Jugjeet Sandhu picked up the par @ Vicky Gujjar. After the firing along with others, overpowered adhti's seat. Thus, the role attribu in the unlawful assembly/fight, opposite side, being part of the g the firing and participation in the Raising submissions in ta State counsel has further submi tion, the challan against the peti nt Court of jurisdiction. Consider fic role attributed to the petitione smissal of the instant petition. I have heard learned couns he available record. The grant of bail falls withi owever, such discretion must d manner, ensuring it aligns wit sts of justice. While considering factors such as the existence of ed, the nature and gravity of the y sentence upon conviction. T d of the accused absconding or e ty of the offence being repeated accused tampering with evid ally, the character, antecedents, all conduct of the accused play must weigh the potential da

rkhi loha and repeatedly assaulted Vi by Ajit @ Jeeta, Rakesh stated that Ajit @ Jeeta and threw him onto uted to Rakesh is primarily participat allegedly assaulting members of group that restrained Ajit @ Jeeta af events leading to the occurrence." andem with the aforesaid rep itted that after completion of itioner stands presented before ring the gravity of the offence a er, learned State counsel has pray sel for the rival parties and ha in the discretionary domain of be exercised in a judicious a th established legal precedents a g a bail application, the Court m f prima facie evidence implicati alleged offence and the severity The Court must also assess evading the due process of law, d and any reasonable apprehensi dence or influencing witness financial means, societal standin y a crucial role. Furthermore, anger of bail undermining

ikas he, tion after ply, and yed ave and and must y of ses. ng,

administra in this reg titled as S Court 349 ation of justice or thwarting its gard is made to the judgment pas State through C.B.I. vs. Amaram 90, relevant whereof reads as und "14. It is well settled that the m for bail are (i)whether there is a believe that the accused had c gravity of the charge; (iii) seve conviction; (iv) danger of accuse bail; (v) character, behaviour, accused;(vi) likelihood of the of apprehension of the witnesses be course, of justice being thwarte Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) R 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. S Supreme Court 179). While a va with the evidence or witnesses m accused is of such character th intimidate the witnesses or if ther liberty to subvert justice or tamp refused. We may also refer to the refusal of bail stated in Kalyan 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC to grant or refusal of bail is ver should exercise its discretion in a course. Though at the stage of g evidence and elaborate document undertaken, there is a need to in facie concluding why bail was accused is charged of having c devoid of such reasons would suf also necessary for the court g circumstances, the following facto a. The nature of accusation and conviction and the nature of supp b. Reasonable apprehension apprehension of threat to the comp

due course. A profitable referen ssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Co mani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Suprem der: matters to be considered in an applicat any prima facie or reasonable ground committed the offence; (ii) nature a erity of the punishment in the event ed absconding or fleeing if released means, position and standing of ffence being repeated; (vii) reasona eing tampered with; and (viii) danger ed bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Sin RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) S State (Delhi Administration), AIR 19 ague allegation that accused may tamp may not be a ground to refuse bail, if hat his mere presence at large wo re is material to show that he will use per with the evidence, then bail will following principles relating to gran n Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranj C) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in reg ry well settled. The court granting b a judicious manner and not as a matte granting bail a detailed examination tation of the merit of the case need not dicate in such orders reasons for pri being granted particularly where committed a serious offence. Any or uffer from non-application of mind. I granting bail to consider among ot ors also before granting bail; they are d the severity of punishment in case orting evidence. of tampering with the witness mplainant.

nce ourt me tion d to and t of d on able r, of ngh SCC mper f the ould his l be t or jan, gard bail r of n of t be ima rder It is ther e: e of

¶7nature. T discloses a group o and have commissi the specif he was p object and with regar to be rat evidence c. Prima facie satisfaction of the c GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan

(SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 and (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SC This Court also in specific terms h "the condition laid down under granting bail even under section it is noticed that the High Cour already undergone by the ac concluding in the near future as g on bail, in spite of the fact that punishable with life imprisonmen our opinion, the mere fact that th of incarceration (three years in t accused to being enlarged on bai to be concluded in the near futu period of incarceration would be bail when the gravity of the off allegations of tampering with th period he was on bail." Indubitably, the allegations The material which has come on that the occurrence was not a su of accused persons who have ass allegedly assaulted the members on of the offence. Although th fic act of inflicting the fatal inju art of the unlawfuly assembly/f d participated in the events leadi rd to exact nature and extent of iocinated upon during the cou and cannot be conclusively

court in support of the charge. (see R Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 2 dPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) R CC 338." held that : r section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non 439 of the Code. In the impugned or rt has given the period of incarcerat ccused and the unlikelihood of t grounds sufficient to enlarge the accu the accused stands charged of offen t or even death penalty. In such cases he accused has undergone certain per this case) by itself would not entitle il, nor the fact that the trial is not lik ure either by itself or coupled with sufficient for enlarging the appellant ffence alleged is severe and there he witnesses by the accused during against the petitioner are grave n record, at this stage, prima fa udden act but an incident involvi sembled at the place of occurren s of the opposite side leading to he petitioner may not be attribu ury but the prosecution case is t fight which acted with a comm ing to the occurrence. The questi his participation would be a mat urse of trial after appreciation y determined at the stage

Ram RCR for rder tion rial used nces s, in riod kely t on are e in acie nce ted hat mon tter of

considera no weapo attributed the conce In offenc liability c particular collective person an allegation use of dea the occur heavily ag and none examined regarding this stage attributed the petitio already be dilute the

¶8serious im on the pe human lif circumsta ation of regular bail. The plea rai on has been recovered from the p d to co-accused persons, also doe ssion of regular bail in the pecul ces involving unlawful assembl cannot be assessed solely on the r accused. The prosecution v e participation in an occurrence nd injuries to others. This Court i ns. The incident resulted in the lo adly weapons. The seriousness o rrence is alleged to have taken p gainst the petitioner. The eviden of the prosecution witnesses ou d. Therefore, the apprehension the possibility of influencing w . The seriousness of the allegati d to the petitioner, weighs heavily oner has been in custody since een presented but these factors b gravity of the offence alleged ag It is apt to mention herein tha mpact on the Society at large. Th erson of the victim prima faci fe on the part of the petitione ances have been made which

ised on behalf of the petitioner t petitioner and that the overt acts es not persuade this Court to gr liar facts/circumstances of the ca y and common object, individ e basis of the injury attributed to version, at this stage, indica e which resulted in the death o is also mindful of the gravity of oss of human life and involved of the offence, the manner in wh place are the factors which wei nce is yet to be tested during tr ut of total 37 witnesses have be n expressed by the prosecuti witnesses cannot be brushed aside ions, coupled with the specific r y against the grant of bail. Thou e 25.10.2025 and the challan h by themselves are not sufficient gainst him. at the offence(s) in question hav he intensity and the nature of inju ie reflect a complete disregard er. At this stage, no accentuati h may prima facie constitute

hat are rant ase. ual o a ates f a ich igh rial een e at role ugh has t to ve a ury of

compellin in light of to be bor public ord only und accused.

¶9attributed prosecutio According not deserv hand.

10.

(i) dismissed

(ii) shall not h as also the being infl

(iii)

July 07, 2 Ajay

ng ground for the grant of regul f the gravity of the allegations an rne in mind that offences of thi der and societal conscience. Gra ermine the gravity of the offe Considering the gravity of d to the petitioner and the li on witnesses, this Court finds gly, this Court is of the consider ve the concession of regular bail In view of the prevenient rati The petition in hand is d d. Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the e trial Court shall proceed furthe luenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

2026

lar bail to the petitioner, especia nd the evidence on record. It is a is nature strike at the very root anting bail in such cases would n ence but may also embolden f the offence, the specific r ikelihood of his influencing no merit in the present petiti red opinion that the petitioner do l in the factual milieu of the case iocination, it is ordained thus: devoid of merits and is here /or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

ally also of not role on. oes e in eby ove ncy