IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.01.2026 Vikram --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present:- Mr. Mohit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

The instant first petition is for seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.245 dated 07.10.2021 under Sections 302, 34 IPC (Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC added later on) & Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been nominated as accused in the aforesaid case registered on the statement of Somnath son of Hari Chand, which reads as under:-

“Statement of Somnath S/o Hari Chand R/o Khasa Pathana and aged 63 years states that I am the resident of above mentioned address and I am an agriculturist. I have two sons elder one is Rajesh @ Raja and younger one is Pankaj Kumar. Both are married. Yesterday dated 06.10.2021 me and my son Pankaj Kumar were travelling in our car No. HR- 23- G-4184 colour white from our Bhuna office to our village Khasa Pathana via Sanchla Road. Car war driven by my son Pankaj Kumar and I was sitting on the side seat. At night around 10:15 PM when we reached near the plot of Balraj S/o Diwan Singh R/o Khasa Pathana our car got punctured then my son Pankaj Kumar stepped out of car to check the tyres in the meantime a motorcycle come from the behind upon which 2-3 unidentified young men were riding one of them wearing helmet and were carrying pistols. They started abusing my son and suddenly started firing upon my son Pankaj from the pistol which they were carrying. That out of fear my son Pankaj Kumar started running through the plot of Balraj towards the fields then those unidentified persons started indiscriminately firing upon my son Pankaj Kumar that my son Pankaj Kumar fell down in the fields due to bullet injury and those unidentified persons ran away from the spot with their weapons and motorcycle. Then I raised the alarm and the people from the neighbourhood gathered at the spot who took my son for treatment to the Govt. Hospital, Bhuna after arranging the vehicle where doctor declared my son dead. I got unconscious after seeing the painful death of my son. Now I have gained the consciousness and got my statement recorded that my son Pankaj Kumar was murdered by unidentified persons by making bullet injury. That strict legal action to be taken against unidentified persons. That I have got my statement recorded read and understood which is correct. Sd/-

Somnath.”

3. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the attribution against him is only to the effect that he was a conspirator. Co-accused Vikram Nain and Jagjeet Singh @ Judge are stated to have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. It is submitted that petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 04 years in the present case and that only 12 prosecution witnesses out of total 44 have been examined so far.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is involved in a large number of cases and he acted as a conspirator in the present case, having sought a share in the liquor trade, which constitutes the underlying motive for his involvement. He is, however, not in a position to indicate any witness as would prima facie establish the active participation or direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence in the present case. It is also not disputed that out of all the cases registered against the petitioner, he already stands acquitted in as many as 16 cases.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the record.

6. Even though, the criminal antecedents of an accused have a bearing while adjudicating a prayer for grant of bail, however, in the circumstances of the present case, it rema