IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1 CRM-M-6009-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 15.09.2025 Pronounced on : 17.09.2025 Dharampal ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. K.S. Sehra, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail, in a case arising out of FIR No.291 dated 15.09.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Gohana District Sonipat. Earlier, the first petition seeking for bail was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 30.07.2024.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR pertaining to this case came into being on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Manjeet S/o Balwan Singh. In the abovementioned complaint, it was stated by the complainant that on 15.09.2023 at about 10:00 am, he along with his cousin Ramesh and grandfather Raj Singh was going to Sonipat on two different motorcycles. According to complainant, on one motorcycle, he was travelling alone, and on another one, Ramesh, as driver, and his grandfather Raj Singh, as pillion rider. As per complainant, at about 10:15 am, when they reached the roundabout, few persons, including Deepak, Monu, Amit and Dharampal (petitioner herein), came on two motorcycles and in two cars, and they launched an attack upon Ramesh and Raj Singh and killed them by using firearms. According to complainant, in the abovementioned incident, Gurcharan, too, has also suffered injuries in his back, and that this act was committed at the instance of Ranbir S/o Chander. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged, investigation taken up and the accused arrested.

3. Heard.

4. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that the petitioner has already suffered a lot of incarceration for being in custody for a period of almost 2 years. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the trial is progressing at a snail’s pace, as out of 78 prosecution, only 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined, so far.

5. In addition to above, it has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the injured, who survived the attack, namely Gurcharan Singh, has already been examined and he has not supported the prosecution case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to abovementioned star witness, 3 other witnesses, too, who were allegedly present on the spot at the time of occurrence, have already been examined and they, too, have failed to lend any support to the prosecution case.

6. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a smog screen has been created by the prosecution by stating that incident was recorded in a CCTV camera, whereas, the abovementioned CCTV footage nowhere confirms the presence of petitioner on the spot. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned claim of the prosecution is altogether false. While arguing that wrong facts have been projected by the prosecution, and that the petitioner has clean antecedents, having no criminal history, and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the concession of bail for the petitioner has been claimed.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that in the present case, there is ample evidence to prove the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. According to learned State Counsel, the complainant in the present case has duly supported the prosecu