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) 26428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJIT YADAV ALIAS AJIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-65631-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(250) CRM-M-65631-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 29.01.2026

AJIT YADAV @ AJIT KUMAR ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana

**** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.114 dated 10.05.2024

registered under Sections 120-B, 386 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms

Act, 1959 (Section 384 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a, 25(6), 29(b), 25(1a) of

Arms Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Farukhnagar, District

Gurugram.

2. As per the allegations, on 10.05.2024, ASI Sanjay Kumar posted at

the aforementioned Police Station, received a secret information that some

members of Lawrence Bishnoi gang, namely Rohit Godara, Naveen Boxer,

Lipan Nehra and Pawan Nehra, were active in the city of Gurugram for extorting

money from businessmen and rich people. The main members of the group

were operating from foreign countries, some of them were lodged in jails and all

AMIT SHARMA

2026.01.29 19:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-65631-2025 (O&M) 2

of them were into contact with each other through different social media apps.

It was also informed that they had even got murdered one businessman Sachin

Goda in Rohtak. One of the members of this gang namely Rohit Godara had

raised demand of ransom money of Rs.2 crores from owner of Maniram Grocery

Store, Gurugram. It was informed that if the above mentioned persons and other

members of the gang were apprehended and interrogated, huge quantity of

contraband, ransom money and weapons could be recovered from them. On the

basis of this information, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation

proceedings were initiated. During investigation, accused Dinesh @ Dinu was

arrested on 10.05.2024. Recovery of two mobile phones, one .30 bore

countrymade pistol alongwith five live cartridges was effected from him. On his

identification, co-accused Jagdish @ Jaggu, Pardeep, Sagar and Vishnu were

also arrested on 12.05.2024, from whom different arms and ammunitions were

recovered. Accused Ritesh @ Arya and Himanshu were arrested on 18.05.2024.

One vehicle used by accused HImanshu at the time of committing offences had

been recovered. Subsequently, accused Rupesh @ Naman, Ashish @ Deva,

Harpal, Karan @ Kannu and Iqbal Singh @ Bill were arrested. Subsequently,

accused-Lokesh Kumar was arrested on 06.02.2025. He got recovered one

carbine weapon alongwith magazine. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure

statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as an

accused and was arrested on 14.02.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement

admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered one pistol and five

cartridges. Some other accused were arrested subsequently. Investigation now

stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing time for

commission of aforementioned offences.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.01.29 19:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-65631-2025 (O&M) 3

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 the co-

accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. A false

recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. The co-

accused Vidyadhar, Himanshu, Jaiprakash have been extended benefit of bail.

On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. His involvement in

other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to

him. He has a permanent abode. There are no chances of his absconding, if

extended benefit of bail. The only role attributed to him is that he had rece

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