116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 Mukesh Chand Meena ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vadit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Dhramvir Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.627 dated 28.12.2023, registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC (Sections 201, 420, 468 and 471 IPC added lateron), at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurugram.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Mahender Meena. It was alleged that on 27.12.2023 at about 10:52 p.m., he received a telephonic call from Rajesh @ Raju that his brother Mithun @ Samay Singh who lived in Mahilpur, Delhi, met with an accident in Gurugram. After some time, he informed that a fight had occurred and a vehicle ran over his brother. It was also informed that Mukesh (the petitioner), Narsi Meena, and Vikram were present at the scene and repeatedly drove the vehicle over his brother. It was further alleged by the complainant that murder of his brother Mithun @ Samay Singh was planned and committed by Rajesh, Mukesh, Vikram and Narsi Meena. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2023. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.05.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that admittedly case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. However, there is no credible evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency for proving the allegations against the petitioner. It is contended that the vehicle with which the petitioner has been alleged to have run over the deceased, does not belong to the petitioner. It is also contended that co-accused, namely, Rajesh @ Raju, Vikram and Narsi @ Meena, who were also present at the time of the occurrence, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.04.2025 and 27.05.2025, respectively. To buttress his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is behind the bars from the last more than two years. He further contends that three of the prosecution witnesses have already turned hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the offending vehicle has been got recovered by the petitioner. He submits that in order to commit murder, number plate of the car found to have been changed. He submits that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, who have been granted bail by this Court. On instructions, he submits that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses have been examined so far. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is the main accused, who committed murder of the deceased.

6. After hearing counsel for the par