[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar Alias Ninja vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.48489 of 2025
Anil Kumar @ Ninja ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 14.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 19.01.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 19.01.2026
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. Viren Sibal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
1 of 6
"BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
44 18.04.2024 Shahpur Kandi, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC
District Pathankot (201 of IPC added later
on)
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
recorded by the complainant Rahul Kumar alleging that his younger brother
Pankaj Kumar @ Panku was running a hair cutting saloon. On 18.04.2024,
accused Vinod @ Sonu Dana called Pankaj Kumar at Baba Pir area. The
complainant along with his brother and one Vikas had reached there at about
5 PM. The accused Vinod was present there along with the petitioner and
other co-accused and all of whom were armed with weapons, after
intercepting Pankaj Kumar, opened an assault upon him. The accused Vinod
Kumar struck blows with datar on his head whereas the petitioner and others
caused injuries on his person with their respective weapons. His left wrist
and arms were deeply cut. The complainant and his companion raised
clamour and then the assailants fled from the spot. The victim was rushed to
hospital but was declared to be dead. By alleging that the accused Vinod and
Rahul were having professional jealousy with the victim and therefore killed
his brother, he prayed for taking action.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 18.04.2024. The co-accused were
also arrested. Investigation now stands completed.
2 of 6
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 18.04.2024. The
trial will take considerable time to conclude. Two of the accused have been
extended benefit of bail. The injury on the person of the victim that has been
attributed to him could not be considered as fatal. He is not involved in any
other case of similar nature and was convicted in a case under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. His continued detention will not serve any
useful purpose. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations, the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common
object thereof, a brutal attack was opened upon the victim Pankaj Kumar
which resulted in sustaining several injuries by him and thereby causing his
death. Two of the accused namely, Rohit Kumar and Pawan Kumar have
been extended benefit of bail due to the reason that they were not identified
as the assailants by material witnesses i.e. the complainant and PW-1 Vikas
whereas, they have supported the prosecution version with regard to the
participation of the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner had allegedly
caused injuries on the right and left forearm of the victim. As per the
postmortem report, there were deep incised wounds over his right forearm
3 of 6
and deep incised wounds over left hand with degloving of left thumb, wrist,
left forearm and left wrist which have been attributed to the petitioner as
well as the co-accused. The allegations prima facie reveal the presence of the
petitioner at the spot with weapon and his participation in the occurrence. He
has been linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 149 of IPC
which has the following ingredients:-
1. There must be an unlawful assembly;
2. Commission of an offence may be by any
member of the unlawful assembly; and
3. Such offence must have been committed in
prosecution of the common object of the assembly,
or must be such as the members of the assembly
knew to be likely to be committed.
8. From a perusal of the above ingredients, it is apparent that even
mere presence in the unlawful assembly but with an active mind to achieve
the common object, makes a person vicariously liable for the acts of the
unlawful assembly. Under Section 149 of IPC, the liability of the other
members, for the offence committed during the continuance of the
occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand
that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object or not. Such knowledge can reasonably be
collected from the nature of the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of
the participants at or before the scene of action.
4 of 6
9. The allegations prima facie show his clear
involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the
such 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. 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. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for
5 of 6
deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and
also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.
(MANISHA BATRA)
19.01.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
