AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.240, dated 22.04.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kharkhoda, Sonipat.
Custody certificate filed in Court today is taken on record.
On a complaint submitted by one Surendera, the FIR in question was registered, the contents of which are as under:-
“Sir, I am Surendra, son of Bhairam, resident of Rohana, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. On 21.04.2025, my elder son Yogendra, whose age is around 39-40 years, was sitting at his home with his 2-3 friends. A boy came there and started abusing my son Yogendra. My son told Sunil that we are laughing at our house and that he should go to his house, but even then Sunil did not listen and went away after threatening, saying, "Wait, I will see you." After saying this, he went away from there. After some time, he came back with his four friends, out of whom Anil @ Diva, S/o Lilu, had a gun. He, Sandeep, Dilu (Pig Farm Owner), Sunil, and five others came, out of whom I do not know the others, but I will recognize them when they come in front of me. Out of these persons, Anil @Diva shot my son. My son tried to escape, but these did not let him escape. Their names are Sunil @ Pankha, Sandeep @ Thotha, Dilu (Pig Farm Owner), and one other, all residents of Rohana village, Tehsil Kharkhoda. They all killed my son. Take strict action against them, catch the culprits, and give them the harshest punishment."
The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2025 and is in custody since then.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that even if the allegations are, for the sake of arguments, believed to be correct, he was merely accompanying Anil @ Diva, who opened fire upon Yogendra, resulting in his death. He submits that there was only one injury on the person of Yogendra, which was a gunshot injury allegedly given by Anil @ Diva. Learned counsel, while referring to his own disclosure statement (Annexure P-3), submits that even as per the disclosure statement of the petitioner, though not admissible in evidence, he had gone to the place of incident on the asking of Sunil and he was not armed with anything. He further submits that the main accused i.e. Anil @ Diva is in custody; investigation has been completed; no recovery has been made from the petitioner; charges stand framed on 12.09.2025; out of 28 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined. He submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. Still further, learned counsel contends that co-accused namely Satpal @ Dhilu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-27786-2026 and the case of the petitioner is at par with that of said Satpal @ Dhilu.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that a heinous offence was committed by all accused while being a part of an unlawful assembly. However, learned counsel has not been able to deny the fact that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of said Satpal @ Dhilu, who has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
As to whether it was a premeditated murder or was an incident which took place at the spur of the moment would be determined when the trial concludes. The sole gunshot injury, as a result of which, Yogendra unfortunately expired, was allegedly given by Anil @ Diva, who is in custody. Concededly, the petitioner was unarmed and even as per his own disclosure statement, he had been called at the spot by Sunil on account of an altercation which has ensued. Investigation stands completed; no recovery has been made from the petitioner; charges stand framed on 12.09.2025 and out of 28 witnesses, none has been examined; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.