IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 Date of decision: September 22, 2025 JASBIR @ RAJE .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana with ASI Manjit Singh.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.155 dated 16.04.2024 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1).

2. Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, and placed on record his Power of Attorney in the Court today after obtaining NOC from the earlier counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was nominated as an accused following a supplementary statement made by the complainant Ram Niwas; the only role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, is of having conspired with the co-accused in carrying out the murder of the deceased Wazir. It has been argued by the learned counsel that even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner did not have any direct motive to carry out the crime in question, much less lend any tacit support to the prime accused Ankit @ Godhu. It has still further been submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, Labh Singh, who was allegedly accompanying the prime accused Ankit @ Godhu, who carried out the crime in question, handed over the bag containing weapon of offence to the petitioner. However, learned counsel asserts that concededly, the bag containing weapon of offence was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, much less following any disclosure statement made by him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it is apparently a case of false implication in the absence of any qualitative evidence gathered by the prosecution directly or even indirectly connecting the petitioner with the murder in question.

5. On being pointedly asked as to whether the petitioner has any previous criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically replied in the negative.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has neither disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed that the only role attributed to the petitioner is of being a conspirator; no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made from the petitioner.

7. On being pointedly asked, learned State counsel, on instructions, has also conceded that the firearms used to commit the crime had neither been procured from the petitioner nor were they recovered from his possession or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him. However, it has been asserted that soon after the occurrence in question, the bag containing the weapon of offence had been handed over to the petitioner by co-accused Labh Singh, who was accompanying the prime accused to the place of occurrence. On a further query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, nor has it been disputed that as on date, only prosecution witnesses out of the 41 have been examined-in-chief.

8. Learned State counsel nonetheless has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR (Annexure P-1), which stands reproduced hereinunder: -

“To, The S.H.O., Police station Meham. Sir, It is requested that I, Ram Niwas son of Tara Chand, am the resident of village Nidana, District Rohtak and am a Zimidar. We are five brothers. The eldest one is Shamsher, younger to him is Satbir, younger to him, myself, younger to me is Wazir and the youngest one is Krishan. All the brothers are married and are living separately