[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhishek Thukral Alias Abbu vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2026
CRM-M-69523-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-69523-2025 (O&M)
Abhishek Thukral @ Abbu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 26.02.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 06.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 06.03.2026
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. Raghav Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Dharam Pal Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. :-
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in
case arising out of FIR No. 376 dated 14.06.2025, registered under Sections
103(1), 3(5), 111(2)(a), 111(2)(b), 111(3), 1121(5) and 61 of BNS, 2023 and
1 of 6
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Shahabad, District
Kurukshetra.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of
complaint submitted by the complainant Prince alleging that he was working
as a driver with the liquor contractor Shantanu from the last one month. On
the evening of 13.06.2025, he along with Aniket, another employee of the
liquor vend and Shantanu was going towards Shahbad. He had stopped his
vehicle at Meena Market Shahbad on asking of Shantanu. The latter had
alighted from the vehicle and was proceeding towards a shop to buy cigarette,
when suddenly two youths reached from behind on a motorbike and one of
them started firing shots upon him. Seeing them, the complainant hit both of
them with his vehicle due to which the assailants also sustained injuries and
fled while leaving their motorbike at the spot. The injured Shantanu was
rushed to hospital who succumbed to the injuries and died. After registration
of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
3. As per the further allegations, on 14.06.2025, a post had appeared
on Instagram by a gangster Noni Rana, thereby taking responsibility for the
murder of the victim Shantanu. Accused Shubham Khurana was arrested on
19.06.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the
crime and also disclosed that the present petitioner and his brother Anuj
Thukral were in contact with accused Sandeep @ Lota, who was a member of
a gang of gangster Noni Rana and was lodged in jail. They were transferring
money in the bank account of accused Sandeep @ Lota and had been
2 of 6
facilitating making of ransom calls by the gangsters by providing details of
the liquor vendors etc. from whom money could be extracted. On the basis of
this disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nominated as accused and
was arrested on 20.06.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting
that he was in contact with accused Sandeep Lota, who was a member of
gangs of Noni Rana and Lawrence Bishnoi, and used to meet the said Sandeep
@ Lota in jail and also used to supply him information` about the liquor
vendors and had also been passing information to accused Sandeep @ Lota
for eliminating the victim Shantanu. Subsequently, some other persons were
also nominated as co-accused and were arrested. Investigation now stands
completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to him. He
was not named in the FIR. The disclosure statement suffered by the co-
accused cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was illegally
picked up by the police and had been kept in illegal confinement from
18.06.2025 to 20.06.2025. The disclosure statement, which has been allegedly
extracted from him, is also of no relevance. Co-accused Sachin Kumar, Mohit
Kumar and Dipender Pal Singh @ Kirat have already been extended benefit
of regular bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same
benefit. There is no material on record to connect him with the offences
punishable under Sections 111(2), 111(3) and 111(5) of BNS, 2023.
Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. No useful purpose
would be served by his further incarceration. It is, therefore, urged that he
3 of 6
deserves to be released on bail.
5. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued
that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as he was
a part of the conspiracy allegedly hatched with the co-accused and was a
member of the gang of Noni Rana gangster. In pursuance of the conspiracy,
the petitioner had been supplying information about the whereabouts of the
victim as well as other liquor vendors and businessmen to the accused
Sandeep @ Lota, who was lodged in jail. He had been visiting jail with the
wife of accused Sandeep @ Lota for the purpose of passing on such
information and facilitating the commission of subject offences. Even on
04.06.2025, he had met accused Sandeep @ Lota in District Jail, Kurukshetra
and this fact stands affirmed from the visitors details record of the accused
Sandeep @ Lota. It is further argued that the murder of the victim Shantanu
had been planned by the petitioner along with co-accused. Material witnesses
are yet to be examined. There are chances of the petitioner's extending threat
to them, committing similar offences or absconding, if released on bail. Hence,
it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and
the murder of the victim Shantanu primarily rests upon the disclosure
statement of co-accused and circumstantial inferences. The role that has been
attributed to him is that of a conduit or a facilitator by providing information
to the accused Sandeep @ Lota regarding names and other particulars of the
rich persons, so that ransom money could be demanded from them by the gang
4 of 6
of gangster Noni Rana. As per the allegations, he was a part of the organized
crime syndicate and used to regularly visit District Jail, Kurukshtra to meet
accused Sandeep @ Lota, who was an active member of Noni Rana gang and
was confined in jail. Along with the status report, personal visitors details of
the accused Sandeep @ Lota as prepared by the concerned jail, have been
annexed to show that the petitioner had visited accused Sandeep @ Lota on
04.06.2025. However, on a perusal of this report, it is clear that it was the wife
of accused Sandeep @ Lota, namely Poonam, who had gone to visit him on
04.06.2025 and the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned therein.
The role that has been attributed to the petitioner is distinct and remote offence
from the direct commission of offence of murder. This Court is conscious that
the offence is serious. However, in present purposes, the Court must test
whether the material against the petitioner justifies continued pre-trial
incarceration bearing nature of evidence and the progress of the trial. Since
the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the case against him rests upon
the disclosure statement of the co-accused or his own disclosure statement,
hence, in the opinion of this Court, this is a matter best left for trial whether
the burden of proof and standard of evidence shall be applied rigorously. The
petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2025. In view of the foregoing discussion,
particularly the limited role as prescribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner would not
serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal
as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty
5 of 6
Magistrate concerned.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
06.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
