Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Khatri @ Khalifa vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-7918-202
2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7918-2026 (O&M)
MOHIT KHATRI @ KHALIFA
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 29.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 30.04.2026
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. Karan Inder Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Ankit Karna, Advocate
Advo for the petitioner
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant
Assistant Advocate General, 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.240 240 dated 20.08.2021 registered under Sections 302, 120B, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202 2026 (O&M) 2
2. As per the allegations, the victim Surender @ Gullar was run running ning a workshop at Jhajjar-Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Bahadurgarh Road. On the evening of 20.08.2021, the above said Surender @ Gullar alongwith the complainant complainant-Satinder, Satinder, Bijender and Sukhvinder was present in his workshop, workshop when one grey colour Swift car reached there, 04 persons alighted alighted from the same, whereas the driver kept sitting therein, all 04 of them at once started firing shots towards Surender @ Gullar. The complainant and his companions rushed to save themselves but several shots were fired at Surender @ Gullar and then the assailants fled away. Surrender @ Gullar immediately succumbed to the firearm injuries.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that one accused Bhupender Bhup nder @ Bhu Bhuppi pi who was lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi in n connection with some other case had suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Offence under Section 120 120-B B of IPC was added. Accused Bhupender Bhup @ Bhuppii was joined into investigation. He suffered disclosure statement admitting admitting his involvement in the crime. On his disclosure, the accused Sunny, Naveen @ Bali Bali, Amit Lota,, Naveen Bhanja, Himanshu @ Bhau, Morish @ Kuki, Manjeet @ Cheeta were nominated as accused. Subsequently, the petitioner was also nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused co accused Deepak @ Dada and Manjeet @ Cheetah. His is presence was secured by way of production warrants, as he was in Jail in some other case and he was arrested on 223.11.2021. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that the accused Himanshu @ Bhau had been asked by accused Naveen Naveen @ Bali to eliminate the victim Surender @ Gullar and AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202 2026 (O&M) 3 on asking of accused Deepak @ Dada, he alongwith the accused Deepak had committed the murder of the victim. Investigation now stands concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR or even by co co--
accused Bhupender @ Bhuppi. The disclosure statement ssuffered by co-accused accused Manjeet @ Cheetah and Deepak @ Dada cannot be stated to be admissible in evidence qua him. He is in custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are totally bleak as only 01 prosecution witness has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
a
5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report and custody certificate has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He was one of the main assailants of the victim. He is a habitual offender being involved in several cases. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. The complainant-Satinder complainant Satinder has duly identified him as one of the assailant at the time of recording of his sworn deposition deposition in the Court. It is, therefore, stressed 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 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202 2026 (O&M) 4
7. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy wi with the co-accused accused and by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with them them, is alleged to have fired shots with firearms upon the victim Surender @ Gullar, thereby causing his homicidal death as on the date of occurrence. The allegations against him ar aree quite grave in nature. The eye-witness-complainant eye complainant has identified him as one of the assailant. The well settled proposition of law is that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds 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) (SC),, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It is also well-settled well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on spe specific cific 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 the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. 21 out of 34 material witnesses have been examined which shows that the trial is going on at a proper pace. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail only on the ground of period spent by him in AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202 2026 (O&M) 5 custody. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the quantum of sentence for which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any commen commentt on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.