Akshay @ Rajput vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.565 dated 20.12.2024 registered under Sections 109(2), 115(2), 121(2), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 221(2), 262, 263(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 111(3) and 61(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.02.2026.

As per the allegations, on 20.12.2024, ASI Anil Kumar along with some other police officials was deputed to take one undertrial Ravi from Neemka Court, Faridabad to Fatehabad jail. They had taken the above said Ravi to Fatehabad in a Scorpio vehicle. After producing him before the concerned Court, they had left for Neemka Jail at about 12:30 P.M. While on the way, the undertrial Ravi asked the police officials that he wanted to ease himself. The police officials had stopped the vehicle at Top Family Dhaba at NH9 and when they were coming back towards their vehicle, suddenly, a Scorpio vehicle reached there. 6-7 youths alighted from the same. They were armed with pistols. They made an exhortation asking undertrial Ravi to flee and then started firing shots with their respective weapons towards the police officials. The complainant/ASI Anil Kumar already knew one of them and identified him as Ankit. The assailants caughthold of Ravi and then tried to flee while firing shots upon the police officials. One of the shots fired by accused Ankit had hit the left arm of Constable Surjit. The police officials had also fired shots upon them. Undertrial Ravi and accused Ankit also sustained injuries. Accused Ankit immediately died at the spot. Accused Ravi also died.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. An inquiry was also conducted under Section 196 of the BNSS by a Judicial Magistrate appointed to conduct the same. Post mortem examination of the dead bodies of the victims was conducted.

As per further allegations, on 04.01.2025, accused Manoj was arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement qua hatching a conspiracy with co-accused Vikrant alias Camera, lodged in Hisar Jail, for managing escape of undertrial prisoner Ravi Jagasi. In pursuance of that conspiracy, accused Rohit Godara had instructed him to receive some weapons from the present petitioner, Akshay. Those weapons were then handed over to accused Sumit alias Sumi and other accused. The petitioner was nominated as accused. Offence under Section 111 of BNS was added. The petitioner, who was in custody in another case bearing FIR No. 7 of 2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, also suffered a disclosure statement in that case admitting the factum of supplying weapons to the co-accused in this case. He was joined into investigation of this case by way of production warrants and was formally arrested on 24.03.2025. Accused Vikrant alias Camera was also arrested. The petitioner again was interrogated in this case and suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he was a member of gang of Lawrence Bishnoi and had been supplying illegal weapons to its members. He disclosed that in November 2024, on asking of accused Manoj, he had brought 06 pistols and cartridges from Ishu Sardar, resident of Manpur, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and had given three pistols on 06.12.2024 to some person as per instructions of accused Manoj alias Dagu. He also demarcated the place where he had supplied the illicit weapons. Offence under Section 61(2) of BNS was added. On 16.10.2025, accused Ram Niwas alias Deepak alias Rajasthani was arrested and suffered disclosure statement that he had purchased illicit weapons from the present petitioner. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has suffered incarceration of more than 01 year and 07 months. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any fruitful purpose. On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. The co-accused Sachin and Gautam have been extended benefit of bail. He deserves to be given benefit of parity. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn and not decided on merits. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present petition being a successive one is not maintainable. It is further argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have been a member of an organized crime syndicate being member of gang of Lawrence Bishnoi. He is alleged to have procured illicit weapons and to have supplied the same to the co-accused at the behest of accused Manoj for the purpose of managing murderous assault upon the police officials and for securing escape of co-accused Ravi from the custody of the police officials. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean, as he is shown to be involved in several other cases, some of which are relating to serious offences. The allegations prima facie show his active complicity in the crime as member of an organized crime syndicate. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. The petitioner is a habitual offender. Only on account of the period of incarceration suffered by him so far, he cannot be considered to have become entitled to seek concession of bail as a matter of right. The petitioner has not been able to show any drastic or substantial change in circumstances ever since the date of dismissal of previous petition. It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC).

In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.