[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yudhvir Singh Alias Yudhvir vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2025
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M)
Yudhvir Singh @ Yudhvir ... 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 29.11.2025
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. Birender Singh Rana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate and
Mr. Neeraj Mann, 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 is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')
1 of 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -2-
seeking grant 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
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 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (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 application for
grant of bail, which was dismissed. The previous petition as filed by him before
this Court for grant of regular bail had been disposed as not pressed vide order
dated 03.02.2025.
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 granted
vide order dated 25.04.2025 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 Parveen. 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
3 of 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -4-
sustained injuries. The complainant and PW7 Dhan Singh in their respective
sworn depositions have made specific attribution to the petitioner. It is,
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 Parveen, 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 the offences under this section are that; there
must be an unlawful assembly; there must be commission of an offence by
any member of that unlawful assembly; that such offence must have been
committed in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, that it
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
4 of 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -5-
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 such person knew beforehand that the offence actually 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 Parveen. 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). There is no substantive or specious change in the
5 of 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -6-
circumstances from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as filed by
the petitioner. It is also well settled that there must be drastic change during
the period between two applications for the successive application to be
allowed, which is not there in this case. 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.
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 25.04.2025, 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
6 of 7
CRM-M-19960-2025 (O&M) -7-
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
7 of 7
