IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pawan ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 12, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh & Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.169 dated 13.04.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 285, 201, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) (Sections 201 and 120-B of IPC added later on), at Police Station City Sohna, District Gurugram.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 12.04.2023 at about 8.00 AM, complainant (Lalit) alongwith his cousin brother Gyanender Bhola (deceased), in white swift car, came to Neta Farm House at Sohna-Palwal Road. At about 5.40 PM, when both of them came out of the farm house for smoking, then three vehicles, i.e., one black scorpio, one white Venue and one white Baleno came, and 15-20 persons alighted from the said vehicles. They encircled the complainant and his cousin brother. Two boys put pistols upon the complainant and made him to sit on the ground. Other co-accused, namely, Bharat and Kapil were armed with axes, Manish and Rohit were armed with hammers, Ajay was having pistol, Lalit alias Lalti (petitioner herein), Rajesh and Azad were having iron rods, and some other 8-10 unknown persons gave fatal injuries to his cousin brother Gyanender Bhola, who succumbed to his injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version available at this juncture is taken to be correct, the petitioner is implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of co-accused & the role attributed to the petitioner is only of making a video of the incident in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2 years and 9 months. Learned counsel also argued that the trial is procrastinating and the same is not on account of folly of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant) has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 10.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.05.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 19.01.2024. Total 61 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 07 have been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evid