[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvesh @ Bunty vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2026
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M)
Parvesh @ Bunty ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 11.02.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.02.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 16.02.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ashit Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Kaushal, Advocate
for the complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
case arising out of FIR No. 41 dated 29.01.2023, registered under Sections
148, 149, 307, 323, 379, 452 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act,
1959 (Sections 302, 325 and 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station
1 of 5
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M) -2-
Murthal, District Sonipat.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by complainant Neeraj on 29.01.2023 alleging that on the
morning of that day, he had gone to Village Badoli, when his wife
telephonically informed him that the petitioner, along with other accused and
some unknown persons, had entered into their house and had been assaulting
his brother Dheeraj and parents, who had sustained injuries. On receipt of this
information, the complainant rushed to his house and found his brother and
parents in an injured condition, who were thereafter rushed to the hospital.
Initially, a case under Sections 148, 323, 307, 325, 379, 452, 506 and 201 read
with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered.
Investigation proceedings were initiated. The victim later succumbed to his
injuries on 30.01.2023. Inquest proceedings and post-mortem examination of
the dead body of the victim were conducted. Offence under Section 302 IPC
was added.
3. As per the further allegations, the petitioner was not arrested
initially. The co-accused Baljeet, Balwan and Surinder were arrested on
30.01.2023. Thereafter, the present petitioner was arrested. He suffered a
disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered
a wooden dao (dagger) at his instance. All other co-accused were also arrested
and recovered the weapons respectively used by them. Investigation stands
completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case, as no specific injury or role has been
attributed to him. In fact, no weapon has been recovered from him. It is further
2 of 5
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M) -3-
submitted that victim Dheeraj was a person with criminal antecedents and as
many as 30 cases were registered against him. He had recently been released
from jail and had attacked the house of the petitioner on the previous night.
The petitioner has been in custody for a period of about 2 years and 6 months.
He has clean antecedents. The trial is likely to take considerable time to
conclude and further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.
Material witnesses have already been examined and there are no chances of the
petitioner intimidating them or misusing the concession of bail. It is, thus,
argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant, has argued that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner, who, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-
accused and in prosecution of the common object thereof, had actively
participated in the crime, thereby assaulting the victims and causing the death
of one of them, namely Dheeraj. The injuries sustained by the mother of the
victim have been opined to be dangerous to life. On the principle of vicarious
liability also, the complicity of the petitioner stands established. It is, therefore,
argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of the common
object thereof, they entered into the house of the victims and launched an
attack upon them, resulting in the death of one of the victims, namely Dheeraj.
The allegations prima facie show the common object of the members of the
unlawful assembly, including the petitioner. The victim Dheeraj had sustained
3 of 5
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M) -4-
as many as 47 injuries on his person, whereas 10 injuries were sustained by his
mother, which were opined to be dangerous to life. Even the father of the
complainant had sustained injuries. The petitioner was named in the FIR.
Specific weapons were attributed to him, and one dagger was recovered at his
instance. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, stands accused of heinous
crime punishable with capital punishment or imprisonment for life. 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 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may
imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could
pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence.
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 complainant 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.
In light of the foregoing legal principles, and having regard to the petitioner's
role in the incident, the recovery of the weapon of offence at his instance and
the reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with evidence,
this Court finds no compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
4 of 5
CRM-M-59315-2025 (O&M) -5-
8. 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.
16.02.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
