[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vikki Alias Ramnath vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH




                     128                                              CRM-M-13216-2026
                                                                      Date of decision: 27.04.2026
                                                                      Date of uploading: 27.04.2026


                     Vikki @ Ramnath                                              ....Petitioner

                                                               V/s
                     State of Haryana
                                                                                  ....Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL


                     Present:-        Ms. Suman Kumari (Bishnoi), Advocate for the petitioner(s).

                                      Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

                                                             *****
                     SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS

2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.166

dated 03.08.2022, under Sections 147,149,302 of Indian Penal Code 1860,

at Police Station Odhan (Sirsa), District Sirsa.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the

petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-

"Statement of Pawan Kumar son of Dharam Singh, resident of Village Bibipur, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, aged 28 years, Mobile No.97281- 07118. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I do labor work. I am married. I have three children. We are

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-13216-2026 Page |2

three brothers, I am the eldest and younger to me is Sandeep and the youngest is Vinod. My brother, Sandeep, age 25 years, was doing eh work of mason. My brother Sandeep was living in Arya Nagar, Hisar with a women named Rani. Today, on dated

03.08.2022 at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning, two missed calls wer come on my phone number 97281-07118 from Phone number 97287-30372 of my brother Sandeep and I could not lift the same. Thereafter, I made a phone call on the phone number of my brother Sandeep, then his phone was coming switched off. Thereafter, after 10-15 minutes, a phone call of Sandeep was come and he said that "get my talk held with mother". I got talk of my mother, Santosh held with my brother Sandeep and my mother gave back the phone to me and when I heard the phone, then some other person was talking on phone. Then, the said person said to me that your brother, Sandeep is here at Khuian Nepal Pur with us and you come after bringing four five persons of village and take him. Thereafter, for my satisfaction, I made a phone call to my uncle, Ram Kishan son of Toda Ram, resident of Arya Nagar, Hisar and sent him at the house of my brother Sandeep. After sometime, my uncle Ram Kishan told that Sandeep is not present in the house and Rani wife of Sandeep, her brother and her Bhabhi and Sonu son of unknown resident of Hindwan, Hissar, are present in the house. During this time, a phone call on my phone number 90797-36246 was come to me from phone number 83073-00234. When I talked on this phone number from my phone number, the the person talking on phone, said that your brother Sandeep was come in the night at our house in Khuian Nepal Pur and he has done a vey bad act and you come and take him, otherwise, we will kill him. Thereafter, I alongwith my father Dharam Singh son of Toda Ram, both my uncles Ram Kishan son of Toda Ram and Ram Kumar son of Toda Ram, r/o Bibipur, was going to village Khuian Nepal Pur, then we came to know that my brother, Sandeep was come at the house of Mani Ram son of Kalu Ram, resident of Khuian Nepal Pur and he was seen by Mani Ram son of Kalu Ram in a naked condition in a room of his house with his mother, Parveen wife of Kalu Ram. Due to feeling angry with this fact, Mani Ram son of Kalu Ram alongwith his mother, Parveen wie of Kalu Ram and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-13216-2026 Page |3

after calling Sandeep, Sunil sons of Tarsem, Sonu, Sandeep sons of Sukhdev, Vicky son of Jagdish, brother-in-law of Vicky and middle son of Vicky, Sunil son of Gori, residents of Khuian Nepal Pur at their house, committed murder of my brother, Sandeep by giving beatings to him with lathi-sticks, legs-fists blows and causing injuries to him with belt, in connivance with each other. Action may be taken against the abovesaid accused persons. Statement is recorded, read and it is correct."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that

the petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2024. Learned counsel has further

submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in

question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further

submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more

than 1 year and 7 months & no witness has been examined till date.

Learned counsel has further argued that the co-accused namely Parveen

Kaur, Sandeep and Mani Ram have been extended the concession of

regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-35795-2024, CRM-M-40469-2024

and CRM-M-9736-2025, respectively. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel while raising submissions in tandem

with the status report dated 20.04.2026 has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

24.04.2026, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone

through the available records of the case.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-13216-2026 Page |4

6. The petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2024 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan was prepared on 22.11.2024. It is

the conceded case before this Cout that total 31 prosecution witness have

been cited, but none has been till date. It is not in dispute that the

conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be

apposite to refer herein to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3)

RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties

shall be gone into during the course of the trial. Nothing tangible has been

brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioners absconding

from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-13216-2026 Page |5

As per custody certificate filed today, the petitioner has

undergone 1 year, 7 months and 28 days & is not shown to be involved in

any other case/FIR.

Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioners in

custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.