121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 Ramandeep Singh @ Ambi ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.27 dated 23.03.2024, registered under Section

302 read with Section 34 IPC, at Police Station Rori, District Sirsa.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of complainant Jagdish Singh @ Jisa, FIR in question was recorded wherein it was alleged that on 22.03.2024, Lakha Singh brother of complainant went to the house of his aunt (Bhua) Guddi Kaur who was married to Tara Singh in village Rori. One Binder Singh suspected Lakha Singh of having illicit relations with his (Binder Singh’s) wife Jaspreet Kaur. Binder Singh planned to kill Lakha Singh and he served liquor to Lakha Singh. After that, Binder Singh quarreled with Lakha Singh. In the fight, Binder Singh, his wife Jaspreet Kaur and other unknown persons killed Lakha Singh by beating him with sticks at around 09.30 pm. Then some relatives informed the complainant that his brother has been murdered and he went to government hospital. Thus, FIR was registered During investigation, name of the petitioner surfaced as one of the accused in the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Binder Singh. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented and the on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa 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 01.09.2025. 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 submits that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, Lakha Singh had illicit relations with wife of Binder Singh, thus motive was also with Binder Singh and not the petitioner. He submits that prosecution has failed to produce any admissible evidence against the petitioner for proving his complicity in the case. It is submitted that recovery of weapons are planted on the petitioner. To buttress his arguments, he has submitted that petitioner has clean antecedents. He further submits that complainant, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, has not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that petitioner is behind the bars for the last 02 years and 09 days and out of 14 prosecution witness, only four witnesses have been examined till date, thus, the right of speedy trial has been defeated. 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 Lakha Singh belonged to a different village and the accused in a preplanned manner had called him in their village and thereafter in a clandestine manner, Lakha Singh was killed by all the accused. He contended that weapon of offence i.e. Lathi had been recovered from the petitioner and he submits that as on today, complicity of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused Binder Singh. On instructions, he submits that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, four witnesses have been examined so far. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that case of the prosecution is based o