[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
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.
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202
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.
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-7918-202
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
