Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep @ Mangtu vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-9297-202
2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9297-2026 (O&M)
SANDEEP @ MANGTU
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 27.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.04.2026
website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr.
r. N.K. Chhokar, Advocate
dvocate for the petitioner
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana
****
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.116 116 dated 23.02.2022 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonipat.
2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 364 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Raj Kumar alleging therein that his brother Anil was having love AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-9297-202 2026 (O&M) 2 affair with a co--villager villager Nirmala wife of Ram Niwas. The family members of Nirmala had come to know about this fact. He alleged that on the noon of 17.02.2022, the petitioner alongwith the co co-accused ccused in pursuance of a conspiracy and with intent to eliminate his brother Anil Anil, had abducted him and had taken him somewhere. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 23.02.2022, the accused Rakesh son of Nirmala was arrested.. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement about hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused accused to eliminate him since he had defamed his family by harassing his mother Nirmala and also disclosed that in pursuance of that conspiracy the victim had had been called by his mother at the bus bus-stop stop of his Village on the noon of 17.02.2022 and then all of them had abducted him, had taken him to Kaliana canal and after alighting him from his vehicle, had inflicted injuries ies on his person with batons and knives, knive , thereby causing his death. He further disclosed that to destroy the evidence of offence they ha had removed the clothing of the victim, had thrown the same in the canal and had set the dead body on fire. He also disclosed about dismantling the vehicle of the victim in different parts and selling the same to co-accused co accused Ravi. The accused Rakesh also demarcated the place where the dead body of the victim was thrown and got recovered the vehicle used by him in the crime.
3. As per the further allegations, the the dead body of the victim had been recovered from the canal in the area of Police Station Bawana, Delhi. The same was kept in the mortuary and had been identified by the family members of the victim. Several injuries were found on the dead body. The pe petitioner titioner alongwith the co-accused accused Ravi, Himanshu, Ankit and Manjeet were arrested on AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-9297-202 2026 (O&M) 3 23.02.2022. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to him. The co-accused accused Rajesh Kumar, Manjeet, Ankit and Ravi have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit benefit.. He is in custody continuously for a period of more than 4 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. His prolonged incarceration militates militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who in connivance with the co-accused co accused had abducted the victim and had killed him by causing injuries on his person. The dead body of the victim was thereafter burnt, so as to cause disappearance of evidence evidence of offence of murder. The trial is going at a proper pace. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-9297-202 2026 (O&M) 4
7. Thee petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 04 years and 02 months. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye eye--
witness to the occurrence. The allegations as against the petitioner are that he alongwith the co-accused co hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of the victim. The co--accused accused Rajesh Kumar, Manjeet, Ankit and Ravi have been extended benefit of bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be extended the same benefit. The tri trial al is not likely to be concluded in the near future as only 19 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. As such further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution tution of India. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief ief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :-
:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-9297-202 2026 (O&M) 5
(iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court.
(v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. shall
(vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the learned trial Court.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and th the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
9. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent-State respondent State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
10. Since the main petition has been allowed allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.