[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh Alias Vicky vs State Of Haryana on 6 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-67766-2025
Date of decision: 06.04.2026
AKASH ..PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA
H ..RESPONDENT
CRM-M-13563-2026
DARSHAN SINGH @ VICKY ..PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT
CRM-M-1800-2026
KUNAL ..PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT
CRM-M-71717-2025
NAVEEN KUMAR ALIAS NAVEEN ..PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-67766
67766-2025.
Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-13563
13563-2026.
Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
POONAM SHARMA
2026.04.08 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM--M-66849-2025 -2-
CRM--M-13563-2026
CRM--M-1800-2026
CRM--M-71717-2025
for the petitioner in CRM-M-1800
1800-2026.
Mr. Mannat Sibal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-71717
71717-2025.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)
1. Th order shall dispose of CRM
This CRM-M-13563-2026, CRM-M--
71717-2025
2025 and CRM-M-1800-2026
CRM as the ppetitions
etitions are interconnected and
have arisen out of the same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM
CRM-M-66849--
2025.
2. The instant petitionss have been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in case FIR
No.150, dated 06.04.2024, registered under Sections 365, 34 IPC (Section
364A, 452, 386, 148, 149, 120-B
120 B IPC added later on) and Secti
Section
on 25 of Arms
Act at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.
3. Incident took place on 06.04.2024, at about 9:30 PM, when the
complainant-Rishi
Rishi Pal was taking meal at his home. As per the allegations,
7/8 boys entered the house and by showing pi
pistol-like
like weapons, sticks and
rods, kidnapped him from there and forcibly put him inside a Mahindra
XUV-500
500 car bearing registration No. HR26
HR26-CD-1731
1731 of silver colour. At
the time of occurrence, Manjit Kaur and Ashok Kumar were also sitting
there. It is further
rther alleged that the accused had reached the house of the
CRM--M-13563-2026
CRM--M-1800-2026
CRM--M-71717-2025
complainant in three vehicles the aforesaid XUV
XUV-500,
500, a Swift (black
colour) and a Verna (white colour).
colour). After kidnapping the complainant,
they proceeded towards Panchkula-Zirakpur
Panchkula Zirakpur Highway. Thereafter, the
complainant was taken to some deserted place, where the accused
person started demanding money from him. It is also mentioned in the
FIR that while the complainant was being kidnapped, the accused
persons were calling each other by their names and therefore the
complainant came to know of two names, namely Anmol and Ankit.
Subsequently, Manjit Kaur was called upon by the accused persons
and ransom amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-- was demanded from her, if she
wanted to see the complainant alive. Later on, after about 2 ½ hours,
the complainant was dropped near Section
Section-21,
21, Tau Devi Lal Stadium,
Panchkula, after receipt of the ransom amount.
4. Counsel argues
es that the co
co-accused
accused Ankit and his family
members were known to Manjit Kaur
Kaur, who is the one of the material
witness in the present case and to whom, alleged ransom was made,,
while the complainant was kidnapped and being taken towards
Panchkula side. It is
i also been pointed out that one FIR No. 159 dated
28.12.2021
.2021 registered under Sectionss 376, 511, 354 (A) 506, 120-B
B
IPC Police Station Women, Panchkula was registered at the instance
of Manjit Kaur against Sanjiv Kumar ((Maternal uncle of co-accused
CRM--M-13563-2026
CRM--M-1800-2026
CRM--M-71717-2025
Ankit Giri), Sunita Giri (Mother of co
co-accused
accused Ankit Giri) and
Kulwant Kaur (Maternal Grandmother
Grandmother of co
co-accused Ankit Giri).
5. From bail order of co-accused
accused Ankit Gir
Giri facts therein
also acknowledged.
acknowledged A cancellation report dated 25.08.2022 was
submitted in the case FIR No. 159, dated 28.12.2021(supra).
Therefore, as pointed out by the learned counsel also, the instant FIR
is got registered for taking revenge primarily against the family
members
ers of co-accused
co accused Ankit Giri, bby
y concocting the version of
kidnapping.
6. As per case of the prosecution all the aforementioned
accused (1)Akash, (2)Naveen, (3)
3) Kunal) have been involved in the
present case only
only on the basis of disclosure statement of the other
accused. However, no active role was assigned to them either in the
FIR or in any other statement of the witnesses. In fact the allegations
which come up against all the petitioners herein states that the
they
y all
were joining the unlawful
lawful assembly with the other accused.
Qua petitioner Darshan it is pointed out he is inside the
jail for a period
period of about 8 months and was made accused after a
period of 15 months of the alleged incident that too on the basis of
some recording on the CCTV footage.
CRM--M-13563-2026
CRM--M-1800-2026
CRM--M-71717-2025
7. Counsel for petitioner ffurther
urther argues that out 28
prosecution witnesses only 6 have been examined till date and 3 has
given up. Another fact apprised to the Court that except of accused
Naveen all other three petitioners herein are being prosecuted on the
Naveen,
basis of supplementary challan.
c Out of 28 prosecution witnesses only
6 of them have
have been examined till date and three were given up.
Admittedly, petitioner Akash who is inside the jail since
1 year 4 months. Petitioner-Naveen
Petitioner Naveen for 1 year 10 months and 15 days
days..
Petitioner Darshan for the last more than period of 8 months and
Kunal 1 year,
year 10 months and 18 days . As disclosed herein
herein, major
number of witnesses are yet to be examined whereas other co
co-accused
accused
namely Arun Beniwal @ Arun @ Jagira and Ankit Giri have already
been released
relea on bail byy this Order vide order dated 20
20.11.2025.
8. Looking at the facts as narrated and recorded herein, also
some of the facts being noticed in the bail order dated 20.11.2025
20.11.2025, this
his
Court does not find that petitioners can be detained inside
side the jail for
an indefinite period as the conclusion trial is likely to take
considerable time.
Thus, considering the tota
totality
lity of circumstances, custody
period and the progress of trial, including the fact that their further
detention will not serve any useful purpose, this court is satisfied that
CRM--M-13563-2026
CRM--M-1800-2026
CRM--M-71717-2025
a case for grant of regular bail is made out.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions are
allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend
any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any
manner directly or indirectly.
The observation made here
here-in-above
above shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the facts ooff the case and the
Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete
evidence available on record.
Petitions stand disposed of.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
April 06, 2026 JUDGE
Poonam Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
