[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep @ Doctor vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
132
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
CRM-M-62484-2025
SANDEEP @ DOCTOR ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondents
CRM-M-62555-2025
AKASHAY RAWAL @ KULDEEP ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Raghav Narayan, Advocate and
Ms. Shiv Jyoti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Paras Talwar, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate and
Mr. Divyansh Som Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Both these petition seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.
298 dated 28.07.2023 registered under Sections 302, 411, 476, 149, 148 and
1 of 6
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act,
1959 at Police Station Furrukh Nagar, District Gurugram having been filed
by different accused, are being decided by a common order.
2. Brief reference to the facts is, however, being made from
CRM-M-62484-2025 titled as "Sandeep @ Doctor versus State of Haryana".
3. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the registration of the
present FIR are that the same was recorded on the basis of the statement made
by the complainant Narender Singh son of Kartar Singh, a resident of Subhash
Nagar near Shiv Mandir, Jhajjar, who stated that he was a retired personnel of
the Indian Army. According to the complainant, on 28.07.2023 at about
06:00-06:15 p.m., while he was present at his residence, he received
information that his son-in-law, Prashant Malik, had been shot by unknown
persons. Upon receiving the said information, the complainant, along with his
acquaintances, immediately proceeded towards the spot near village
Harinagar Ima, District Gurugram, from where his injured son-in-law had
already been taken to the hospital. Upon making inquiries, the complainant
came to know that his son-in-law Prashant Malik son of Kanwar Singh,
resident of Model Town, Jhajjar, who was working as an Assistant Professor
at Global College, Kheda, Farukhnagar, had gone to his place of employment
earlier that day on 28.07.2023 on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-
14K-6209. It was further stated that while he was returning home from his
duty, his colleague Kusum Lata, who was also working as a professor in the
same college, was accompanying him on the motorcycle. It was alleged that
when both of them were passing through the road between village Harinagar
Ima and village Yakubpur, certain unknown persons intercepted them and
2 of 6
opened fire, as a result of which Prashant Malik sustained fatal injuries and
died. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought legal
action against the unknown assailants, whereupon the present FIR came to be
registered.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that as per the case of the prosecution, Prashant Malik, the son-in-law of the
complainant, was shot dead in the occurrence which allegedly took place on
28.07.2023. It is further contended that during the course of investigation, the
police nominated a total of six persons as accused in the present case, while
the petitioner Sandeep @ Doctor (petitioner in CRM-M-62484-2025) was
travelling in a car along with co-accused Sahil, Sandeep and Sanjeev, whereas
the other petitioner Akshay Rawal @ Kuldeep (petitioner in CRM-M-62555-
2025) was travelling on a motorcycle along with Surender Kumar, who has
been described as the main assailant in the incident.
5. Learned counsel further submits that another individual, namely
Anil, has also been nominated as an accused in the present case. It is submitted
that the said Anil allegedly supplied two country-made pistols to Surender
Kumar. It is further submitted that the motive for the incident is primarily
attributed to Surender Kumar, as he suspected the deceased Prashant of having
an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. The said relationship was
unacceptable to the assailant Surender Kumar thus resulting in the incident. It
is submitted that as per the case set up by the prosecution, while Surender
Kumar kept one weapon with himself, he allegedly handed over the second
weapon to the petitioner with the instruction that he should fire upon the
deceased in the event Surender Kumar failed to do so.
3 of 6
6. Learned counsel further submits that, so far as the other accused
persons, namely Sanjeev and Sahil, are concerned, they have been attributed
the role of co-passengers in the car which, according to the prosecution, was
being used during the occurrence and Akshay Rawal @ Kuldeep (petitioner
in CRM-M-62555-2025) is stated to be driving the motorcycle on which
Surender Kumar was seated as a pillion rider and fired the fatal shots at the
deceased Prashant. Counsel further submits that one of the weapons had
allegedly been handed over by Surender Kumar to the present petitioner with
the alleged instruction to fire at the deceased if Surender Kumar failed to do
so. However, it is contended that the said weapon has not been recovered from
the possession of the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that a disclosure statement was recorded
during the course of investigation, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had
handed back the weapon to Surender Kumar and recovery of both the weapon
used in the occurrence has ultimately been effected from Surender Kumar.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have clean criminal
antecedents and have already undergone actual custody of more than two and
a half years in the present case. It is contended that, apart from the disclosure
statement recorded during the course of investigation, there is no other
evidence that would relate the petitioners with the commission of the offence
in any manner whatsoever. It is further argued that out of total 45 witnesses
cited by the prosecution, only 24 have been examined and 21 witnesses are
yet to be examined.
8. Counsel for the respondent-State as well as the complainant
contend that earlier prior to the incident, the Call Detail Records (CDR) and
4 of 6
location data of the petitioner(s) were found to be in proximity to that of the
main assailant, namely Surender Kumar. It is contended that such
circumstances, when read together with the other material collected during the
course of investigation, indicate that the petitioner(s) were in communication
with and in the company of the main assailant, thereby suggesting their
knowledge of and participation in the conspiracy leading to the commission
of the offence. It is, however, not disputed by Counsel for the parties that the
petitioner(s) have clean antecedents and that no other recovery has been
effected from petitioner Sandeep @ Doctor, whereas only the motorcycle
allegedly used in the occurrence has been recovered from petitioner Akshay
Rawal @ Kuldeep. They, however, do not dispute that after the firing incident,
the main accused Surender Kumar did not flee from the spot on the said
motorcycle, and that the petitioner Akshay Rawal @ Kuldeep is stated to have
left the place alone on the motorcycle. The period of custody already
undergone by the petitioner(s), as well as the present stage of the trial, have
also not been disputed by the State or the complainant.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations
levelled against the petitioner(s), the period of custody already undergone by
them, their clean criminal antecedents, the absence of recovery from
petitioner-Sandeep @ Doctor as well as that the case against the petitioner(s)
is based on circumstantial evidence, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the
petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5 of 6
10. The instant petitions are allowed and the petitioner are ordered
to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety
bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
11. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and
shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or
indirectly.
12. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case
on the basis of available material.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
MARCH 16, 2026 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
