[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-20987-2025 -1-
CRM-M-31083-2025
131(2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-20987-2025
Mohit .....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
2. CRM-M-31083-2025
Shubham @ Goonda ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
Date of decision: 23.03.2026
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate (in CRM-M-20987-2025)
Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate and
Ms. Monika, Advocate (in CRM-M-31083-2025)
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this common order, this Court intend to dispose of
abovesaid two petitions as they have arisen out of the same FIR.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the
present petitions praying for grant of regular bail to them in case FIR
No.111 dated 10.02.2023, under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 216 of IPC
and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Kundli, District Sonipat, Haryana.
3. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged
on the statement of complainant-Sudama. It was alleged that his brother,
namely, Chand (deceased) is involved in two other cases of murder but he
1 of 5
CRM-M-31083-2025
was on bail in those cases. It was further alleged that complainant's brother
was residing with Savita wife of Dinesh since March, 2022 as he was
looking after the construction work of Savita's house. It was alleged that on
22.01.2023, complainant reported that his brother is missing and despite
best efforts, they could not trace him. Thus, the FIR was registered and
investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of the
petitioners surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused thus,
petitioners were arrested on 13.03.2023. On completion of the
investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial
commenced. Petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sonipat, praying for grant of regular bail. However, after
hearing counsel for the parties, the same were declined vide orders dated
28.05.2024 and 20.09.2024, respectively. Being aggrieved, earlier
petitioner-Mohit (in CRM-M-20987-2025) approached this Court by way
of filing CRM-M-33666-2024 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on
24.10.2024. Hence, he is before this Court by way of filing the present
second petition. However, qua petitioner-Shubham (in CRM-M-31083-
2025), this is the first petition praying for grant of regular bail.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present cases. It has
been contended that admittedly, the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. It has been contended that as per the case of
prosecution, the deceased went missing on 22.01.2023 and thereafter, his
dead body was recovered in Sonipat by the police on 31.01.2023. It has
been further contended that petitioner-Mohit has been implicated in the
present case on the basis of alleged confessional statement recorded in
other case that it was he along with co-accused, namely, Shubham who has
2 of 5
CRM-M-31083-2025
committed the murder of Chand. It has been contended that confessional
statement of petitioner-Mohit is not even an admissible evidence. It has
been submitted that once the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence, prosecution is bound to complete the chain of
evidence however, the present case is factually without any evidence on
record. To buttress their arguments, it has been contended that the deceased
was facing murder trial in two cases and there was every probability that he
earned enmity with number of other people who might have murdered him.
It has been submitted that the petitioners have been implicated on the basis
of presumptions and assumptions. It has been submitted that though
petitioner-Shubham is invovled in 20 other cases, however, in other case,
he is on bail and in some case, he has been acquitted. It has been submitted
that though petitioner-Mohit is falsely implicated in 04 other cases,
however, in 01 case, he is on bail and in 03 cases, he has been acquitted.
5. Status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Vipin Kumar
Ahlawat, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rai, District Sonipat,
filed by learned State counsel, is already taken on record.
6. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel. He has contended that the complicity of the petitioners has
been surfaced during investigation. He has submitted that dead body of the
brother of the complainant was recovered on 31.01.2023 which was duly
identified by the complainant. He has submitted that during investigation,
the weapon of offence i.e. pistol has been recovered from petitioner-
Shubham whereas, petitioner-Mohit has demarcated the place of
occurrence. He has contended that both the petitioners in connivance with
other co-accused eliminated Chand as he was having illicit relations with
the mother of petitioner-Shubham. On instructions, he has submitted that
3 of 5
CRM-M-31083-2025
out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined. He has
placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioners.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the case of the prosecution is admittedly based
on circumstantial evidence. The deceased went missing on 22.01.2023
whereas, the dead body was recovered on 31.01.2023. The evidences relied
upon by the prosecution against the petitioners are primarily their
confessional statement and recovery of the alleged weapon used in
occurrence. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was facing prosecution
in 02 cases for the offence under Section 302 IPC and at the time of
occurrence, he was on bail. Custody certificates of the petitioners filed by
the State show that the petitioners have undergone incarceration of 03
years and 10 days as on 22.03.2026. Custody certificate of petitioner-Mohit
shows that though he is involved in 04 other cases, in 01 case, he is on bail
and in 03 cases, he has been acquitted. Custody certificate of petitioner-
Shubham shows that though he is involved in one 20 more cases, in 07
cases, he is on bail and in rest 13 cases, he has been acquitted. As submitted
by learned State counsel, out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only 10
witnesses have been examined till date. Needless to say that speedy trial is
the right of every accused.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar
Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem
Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC
695 has held as under:
"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy
trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period
4 of 5
CRM-M-31083-2025
may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely
delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of
speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the
administration of justice."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated
03.07.2024 in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, has held that howsoever serious a
crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the
Constitution of India.
10. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the cases will take sufficiently
long time. However, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of
the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are
ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
23.03.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
