IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235 CRM-M-43773-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2025 Sachinder Dabas @ Mona ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sahil Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 58 dated 31.01.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (Section 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Sector 8, Faridabad.

The first petition was dismissed as not pressed.

2. As per the allegations, Suraj Bhan, husband of the complainant Rajjo Devi was residing in a flat at Faridabad from the last six months. On 30.01.2024, she had come to meet him. In the evening time, her husband had gone to Gym. At about 6:45 PM, on receipt of intimation that her husband had been shot at by someone, she rushed to the spot and came to know that some unknown assailants had killed him. On her complaint, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Postmortem examination of dead body and inquest proceedings were conducted. CCTV footage of the camera installed in the vicinity was collected and two youths were found opening indiscriminate firing upon the victim after alighting from a car. On the basis of statements of the complainant and her son, two persons namely, Paramjeet and Nitin Narula were nominated as accused. Accused Paramjeet was arrested on 01.03.2024. Accused Nitin Narula and Mangal Singh were arrested on 03.03.2024. Another accused Jyoti Prakash @ Baba was arrested on 16.03.2024. During investigation, it surfaced that the present petitioner had given illegal weapons and his vehicle to co-accused Mangal and Atul, which were used in commission of murder of the victim. The petitioner, who was already in custody in connection with some other case, was taken into custody in this case as well by way of production warrant on 12.07.2024.

Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co- accused Nitin Narula, who has since been extended benefit of bail along with co-accused Yogesh. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. His case is at better footing than that of co-accused Nitin Narula and Yogesh. There is no eyewitness or direct evidence connecting the petitioner with this case. His continued incarceration in the absence of any direct evidence would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases can also not be considered to be a reason for denying him concession of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who had conspired with gangster Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu for committing murder of the victim and in pursuance of that conspiracy had procured illicit weapons along with bullets and had handed over the same to co-accused Mangal for killing the victim and had also handed over a Swift car to co-accused Atul for the same purpose. He is involved in three more cases. There are chances of his absconding, if released on bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the submissions made by both the sides.

6. The role attributed to the petitioner is limited to facilitating illegal procurement of firearm and is distinct from