IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.241 CRM-M-13991-2026 Decided on : 16.04.2026 Rohit alias Landa ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Malik, Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Mr. Yudhvir Hooda, and Mr. Dharampal Saini, Advocates for the petitioner.

Sh. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.18 dated 06.02.2020, registered under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Rewari, District Rewari.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused committed murder of one Sanju and also caused gunshot injuries to the complainant and injured persons with an intention to kill them. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused. He further contends that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co- accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He has submitted that the similarly situated co-accused Amit Kataria alias Kalu and Hari Om have already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.12.2025 and 22.01.2026, passed in CRM-M-8932-2025 and CRM-M-2225-2026 respectively. It has also been contended that the complainant Ashok Kumar (PW2) and other material witnesses namely Nitesh Kumar (PW1), Deepak (PW3) and Punit (PW7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. To lend force to his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements (Annexures P-1 to P-4), made before the trial Court wherein none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2021. The investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 85 prosecution witnesses, only 27 have been examined till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as custody certificate which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is an habitual offender. However, he has not controverted the fact that the complainant and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 years 01 month and 25 days; the complainant and other eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case; the similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands pre