IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30^th January, 2026 CCL S @ S ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 79 dated 24.02.2023, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 341, 506, 201, 216, 120-B of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul (for short “the Board”), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, was dismissed.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Pawan, alleging therein that the relations between his family members and the family of accused Tarun, Pradeep, and the present petitioner, who is a juvenile in conflict with law, were inimical. On 24.02.2023, he, along with his brother Rakesh, was proceeding towards his house when within his sight, the petitioner along with co-accused Tarun and Pradeep was found standing on the way. Ajay Kumar, brother of the complainant, reached there on his bike in the meanwhile, and on seeing him, accused Sunil and Anil, who were present there, made an exhortation not to spare Ajay. Then, the petitioner along with co-accused Tarun, Pradeep and Pankaj stopped the bike of Ajay Kumar, who fled towards the village to save himself. However, accused Tarun @ Chikku fired a shot at him with a country-made pistol and thereafter the petitioner and co-accused Sujit, both armed with axes, and accused Pankaj, armed with a stick, encircled Ajay and opened an assault upon him by striking blows with their respective weapons. The complainant and his brother raised clamour and then the assailants fled away while extending threats to kill the entire family of the complainant. The victim was immediately rushed to the hospital but was declared to be brought dead, 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2023. Since he was found to be a juvenile, and the challan against him was presented before the Board; however, subsequently, he was ordered to be tried as an adult and is now facing trial before the Children Court. The application moved by the petitioner for grant of regular bail was dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide order dated 29.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case. False recovery of a pistol has been planted upon him, though as per the FIR he was allegedly armed with an axe at the time of occurrence and had used the same. It is contended that the prosecution version is improbable and false since no injury caused by an axe or sticks was found on the dead body of the victim and, as per the post-mortem report, only six firearm injuries were sustained. It is further argued that the material witnesses namely Pawan, Bhup Singh, Balwan Singh, and Rakesh, have since been examined. They had materially improved their versions, which are self- contradictory as well as inconsistent with the prosecution case, and as such, their statements are not at all reliable. It is also urged that the petitioner has remained in custody for a long period and there are bleak chances of conclusion of trial in near future, as only three out of thirty-three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is further argued that while declining the prayer made by the petitioner, the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the aforesaid importan