SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 26386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RANJIT SINGH @ MARKU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29th January, 2026 Ranjit Singh @ Marku ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 73 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 285, 323, 302, 379 and 427 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 324, 325, 326, 341, 506 and 201 of IPC added later on and Sections 285 and 427 of IPC deleted) at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written statement submitted by the complainant, Pyara Singh, alleging that his nephew Sitaram @ Satish, was engaged in the business of property dealing in partnership with one Parveen, brother of Jitender @ Gogi. A case was registered in the year 2019 on the complaint of the aforesaid Jitender @ Gogi at Police Station Dhand, and Sitaram @ Satish had been providing assistance to Jitender @ Gogi. The members of the rival party consisting of petitioner and co-accused Rahul and Baljeet had been pressurizing Satish to not to help the above-named Jitender @ Gogi, and another case was registered against them as they had committed the murder of one Sandeep on 02.07.2019. He alleged that on 18.04.2023, his nephew i.e. the victim Sitaram had accompanied Rahul to the District Court, Kurukshetra, to attend the hearing of the case of murder of Sandeep, and at that time, the petitioner and accused Rahul and Parveen had proclaimed that they would get the victim killed. He further alleged that on 03.05.2023, he had gone to meet his brother Ramdiya and when he left the house of his brother and had reached near the corner of the street, he saw that the victim Sita Ram @ Satish was standing outside his scorpio vehicle and was having conversation with someone with his mobile phone. At the same time, accused Kapil, Mandeep and Anmol reached there accompanied by one unknown person and were seen rushing towards the vehicle of the victim. Simultaneously, accused Baljeet @ Kala and Ajay Rathore along with one unknown person reached there and they damaged the window panes of the vehicle of the complainant. Accused Anmol @ Sunny threw red chilly powder in the eyes of Sita Ram. He raised alarm and rushed towards the rear seat of the vehicle, however, he was assaulted by the assailants who caused injuries to him with the weapons carried by them. A rescue alarm was raised by the complainant and by Kapil. However, the assailants fired three shots with a pistol upon the victim and then fled away. The victim Sitaram @ Satish succumbed to the injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted.

3. As per the further allegations, the accused Mandeep and Anmol @ Sunny, were arrested on 06.05.2023. Offence under Section 120-B IPC was added. On the disclosure of accused Mandeep and Anmol, accused Vikas @ Budli was nominated. Accused Amarjeet was found involved in giving shelter to the assailants. Offence under Section 212 IPC was added. The petitioner and co-accused Parveen were joined into investigation on 19.05.2023 and were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Offence under Section 180 IPC was added against them. Two other accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed against the petitioner and the apprehended accused. Challan has been presented.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was in custody in some other case at the time of occurrence and was confined in District Jail, Kurukshetra. He was im

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top