[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Alias Vicky vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2025
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M)
Vikas @ Vicky ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 10.11.2025
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.11.2025
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 01.12.2025
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. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sahil Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General,Haryana.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Narula, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate,
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate,
Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Advocate and
Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking grant
1 of 6
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -2-
of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 16.12.2020, registered under
Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
(offences under Sections 201, 324, 325 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act
were added later on), at Police Station Munak, District Karnal.
2. The adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that on
16.12.2020, on receipt of a telephonic information regarding apprehension of
some altercation to take place between the members of Kisna Pana of village
Gagsina and of members of rival party over some land dispute, a police party
headed by SI Kuldeep Singh reached at village Gagsina-Kapro road, where a
huge crowd of people was found to be present. On reaching there, dead bodies
of two persons, namely, Dilbagh and Parveen were found lying at the spot.
Complainant - Virender Singh, who was present there, submitted a written
complaint that some land belonging to members of Kisna Pana was abutting on
the road proceeding from village Gagsina to Kapro and accused Yudhvir,
Jasbir, Randhul, Ram Mehar, Dilbagh and Kuldeep had taken possession of the
said land, in an illegal manner. On the same day, some respectable members of
Kisna Pana including the victims, had reached at the disputed land and were
getting the foundation dug through some JCB machine for raising construction
of a wall, when the accused persons including the present petitioner
accompanied by several other persons reached there. They were armed with
weapons and they opened an assault upon the members of the complainant
party with their respective weapons after making exhortations. The shots raised
with firearms had injured Parveen, Balraj and Dilbagh, who had died at the
spot. Other members of their party had also sustained several injuries. The dead
2 of 6
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -3-
body of Balraj had already been sent to CHC, Gharonda. After registration of
FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
3. As per the further allegations, post mortem examination of the
dead bodies of the victims, was conducted. During the course of investigation,
statements of injured and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2020. He moved an application
for grant of bail, which was dismissed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He remained in custody from 18.12.2020. A
false recovery has been planted upon him. No specific act has been attributed to
him. Trial is not going to conclude in the near future as only 8 out of 76
prosecution witnesses have been examined. His continued detention would not
serve any purpose. He has not misused the concession of interim bail vide order
dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court. With these broad submissions, it is
urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned senior
counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and
specific allegations against the petitioner who was an active participant of the
unlawful assembly. He had fired shots with a firearm thereby causing
homicidal death of the victim Balraj. He is also vicariously liable for the acts
with the co-accused. Three persons had succumbed to the injuries sustained at
the hands of the petitioner and co-accused in the incident, whereas 13 persons
sustained injuries. The complainant and PW7 Dhan Singh in their respective
sworn depositions have made specific attribution to the petitioner. It is,
3 of 6
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -4-
therefore, urged 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 a considerable length.
7. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly
with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to
have assaulted the members of the complainant party. Three of whom had
succumbed to the firearm injury sustained by them whereas 13 persons were
injured. The allegations prima facie reveal that the members of the petitioner's
party were the aggressors. His complicity in the crime also stands prima facie
established from the allegations in the FIR as well as from the statements
recorded by the material witnesses. PW7 Dhan Singh is categorically shown to
have stated that the petitioner had fired a shot upon the victim Balraj, thereby
causing his death. The petitioner has been linked to the subject crime not only
by individual act but with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The most essential
ingredients for commission of these offences are that; there must be an
unlawful assembly; there must be commission of an offence by any member
of that unlawful assembly; and such offence must have been committed in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly, or must be such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
8. It is well settled that even mere presence in the unlawful
assembly but with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes a
person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly. The liability
of members of the assembly under Section 149 of IPC rests upon the fact
whether the such person knew beforehand that the offence actually
4 of 6
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -5-
committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object
or not and such knowledge can be collected reasonably from the nature of
the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of the participant(s) at or
before the scene of action.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner by forming membership of an
unlawful assembly is alleged to have gone to the house of Ram Mehar, and
opened an attack upon the members of kisna pana. As per the allegations, he
had fired shot upon victim Balraj. The allegations prima facie show his clear
involvement in the crime while having knowledge that subject offences were
likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with co-accused
stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life
imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the
Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the
accusation of murder under Section 302 IPC. The material witnesses are yet
to be examined. 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). 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
5 of 6
CRM-M-24088-2025 (O&M) -6-
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.
10. In light of the foregoing legal principles and other
circumstances as discussed above, this Court finding no compelling ground
to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. The petitioner, who is on interim bail in pursuance of order
dated 15.05.2025, is directed to surrender within a period of one week from
today before the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court
shall be at liberty to initiate proper proceedings for securing his presence in
the Court.
12. 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.
13 Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.11.2025 JUDGE
harjeet
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
