Neeraj vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-21190-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227
CRM-M-21190-2026
Decided on : 12.11.2026
NEERAJ
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Anupal Singh Tanwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 800 dated 10.08.2018, under
Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act and Sections 302 and 34 of IPC
(Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS) registered at Police Station Chandni
Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat.
2. Taking note of the contentions raised and the period of
incarceration undergone by co-accused Ravi, while granting him bail, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court recorded the following in its order dated
28.08.2023:-
“1. xxx
2. Prosecution case is that complainant Ankur
Gupta, having family business of dye of
fabrics/textiles, when on 10.08.2018was giving
monthly salaries to workers along with his father
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 2
Parmod Gupta and brother Yaman Gupta, two young
boys in muffled faces reached their factory premises.
They demanded money from his father. When his
father questioned them, they fired gunshots at his
father with the pistols they were carrying. His father
fell down on the ground. On hearing the gunshots,
several workers of the factory reached there and
apprehended the said boys along with their weapons.
In the scuffle, some workers also received injuries. He
took his father to Government Hospital, Panipat
where he was declared brought dead. FIR was lodged.
Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2018.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
there is no motive attributed to petitioner to commit
the alleged offence. The alleged gunshot is attributed
to co-accused Neeraj. No specific role is attributed to
the petitioner. He further submits that nothing is to be
recovered from the petitioner and he is not required
for further custodial interrogation. There is no
likelihood of petitioner tampering with evidence and/
or influencing prosecution witnesses.Petitioner is
totally innocent and has thus been falsely implicated
in the case.There is no other case pending against
him. He further submits that petitioner is having
serious medical issue with regard to working of his
kidneys and if not treated urgently, he may not
survive.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel
opposes the bail petition. He submits that petitioner
has committed a serious offence. Accused were
apprehended at the spot along with the weapons they
were carrying with which they had committed the
murder of the father of the complainant. There is
direct evidence against them and there are several
eyewitnesses to prove the same.In case, petitioner is
granted concession of bail, there are chances of his
fleeing from justice.He, however, admits that no other
case is pending against him.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned
counsels for the parties and have gone through the
case file.
6. On a Court query, under instructions from SI
Shri Krishan, learned State counsel submits that after
challan was presented and charges were framed, trial
is going on. Investigation is thus complete. Petitioner
is not required for custodial interrogation. Out of 21
prosecution witnesses, 14 have been examined.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 3
Allegations against petitioner are a matter of trial at
this stage. Conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite
sometime as it is proceeding at a snail pace.
7. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom
until his guilt or innocence is determined. Whereas,
petitioner has already been languishing in jail more
than 05 years, being behind bars since 10.08.2018.
He is being kept in preventive custody merely on
anunfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may
either tamper with evidence and/ orinfluence
witnesses.
8. Vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court, petitioner was
granted interim bail. Order being relevant is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia
contends that the only allegations against the petitioner are
that he exhorted co-accused Neeraj, on which, said Neeraj
fired fatal shot, which resulted in death of Parmod Gupta,
father of complainant. The counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 4 years and
9 months and is having no criminal history and further, it will
take considerable time for the trial to conclude as till date only
13 PWs out of cited 21 PWs have been examined. It is further
submitted that all the material witnesses are examined and if
released on bail, there is no fear that petitioner is going to
influence or pressurize them. So prayer is made for grant of
regular bail.
The prayer is resisted by counsel for the complainant,
who that the trial is going on and already 13 PWs are
examined including all the material witnesses and he further
submits that the next date fixed before the trial Court is
24.8.2023 for recording statements of remaining PWs and
further the petitioner has actively participated in the
occurrence and was armed with pistol and he exhorted the co-
accused Neeraj and only thereafter Neeraj shot dead the
deceased.
The State counsel on instructions from SI Krishan has
not disputed the custody period of the petitioner and further
apprised theCourt that indeed the material witnesses are
examined but still 8 another prosecution witnesses remain to be
examined and for that purpose the date fixed in the trial Court
is 24.8.2023.
The counsel for the petitioner also apprised the Court
that the petitioner is having medical issue with regard to
working of his kidneys and for proper treatment the petitioner
was taken to PGI also by the jail authorities.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is
already in custody for the last 4 years and 9 months and is
having no criminal history and further it will take considerable
time for the trial to conclude, the petitioner is hereby directed
to be released on interim bail till the next date of hearing
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 4
subject to satisfaction of trial Court/CJM concerned on his
furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds.
Now be listed on 28.8.2023.”
9. On a Court query, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a poor person and
could not provide the bail bonds for his interim bail
and, therefore, still continues to be in custody despite
the concession granted by this Court. He submits that
if regular bail is granted, he will make arrangements
for bail bonds.
10. Given his medical condition, petitioner doesn’t
appear to be a threat to society and also unlikely to
flee. He has clean antecedents and has a fixed abode.
11. Considering the overall scenario and without
commenting on the merits of the case, the instant
petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful
purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in
further preventive custody.
12. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds
to the satisfaction of Ld. trial Court, where his case is
being tried and in case he/she is not available, before
learned Duty Judge, as the case may be.
13. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or
gets involved in any offence while on bail, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of
his bail in the instant case.
14. It is made clear that any observations and/or
submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any
effect on merits of the case as the same are for the
limited purpose of hearing the instant bail petition
alone and learned trial Court shall proceed without
being influenced with this order.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.”
3. Thereupon, by directing the District and Sessions Judge,
Panipat, following was recorded by this Court, on 26.08.2026:-
“iii) In compliance with the order dated 11.08.2026
passed by this Court, report dated 17.08.2026 has
been forwarded by the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Panipat.
iv) The report is detailed one and compels this
Court to form an impression that either the accused
were not produced before the Trial Court by the jail
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 5
authorities on the dates fixed, or the witnesses were
remiss in appearing and deposing before the Court.
The trial is pending for the last about eight years, yet
it could not be concluded even as of now. Out of a
total of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 16-17 have
been examined, while 10 witnesses are yet to be
examined. In a given situation, if some accused
remains inside jail and lastly earns acquittal, there
would not be any reasonable answer with the Courts
or the other agencies.
v) At the time of the incident, petitioner was 21
years of age and, since then, he has not seen light of
day the outside the jail. It would also be hard to
expect much from such an accused that he may look
around with a positive frame of mind towards society
or the people around him, particularly, when he has
already suffered considerably without proving of the
charges against him.
From the custody certificate, it is apparent that,
except in the present case, petitioner is not facing any
other proceedings in any other criminal case.
vi) With the circumstances discussed above,
petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail,
subject to his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other
case.
vii) List the matter on 12.11.2026.
viii) Meanwhile, learned District and Sessions
Judge, Panipat, shall examine the record and
thereafter conduct an inquiry to ascertain the
officer(s)/official(s) responsible for the prolonged
pendency of the trial and the reasons attributable to
them. Let the fact-finding inquiry report be forwarded
to this Court so that suitable action may be taken in
this regard, preferably within two months.
If the learned Sessions Judge concerned deems
it appropriate, concerned officer(s) of the District
Administration, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner or any
other senior officer, may also be called upon to
furnish an explanation on the aforesaid aspect.
ix) However, it is made clear that the State
Administration should not get the impression that this
is an isolated or special case. This Court is
experiencing in number of cases, where official
witnesses are remiss either in producing the accused
before the Trial Court or in appearing for deposition.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 6
Consequently, the entire proceedings, which are
dependent upon such authorities/witnesses, are unable
to proceed further.”
4. There are total two accused in the present case namely
Neeraj (petitioner herein) and Ravi. However, co-accused Ravi had
already expired during the course of trial.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after being released
on interim bail granted by this Court, vide order dated 26.08.2026, there
is no allegation of misusing of the said concession by the petitioner.
6. Learned State counsel could not controvert the aforesaid
factum as stated by counsel for the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, order dated 26.08.2026, is ordered to
be made absolute, and present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/
Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned,
if not required in any other case.
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
9. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-21190-2026 7
10. Since compliance of the direction issued by this Court at
clause (viii) in the order dated 26.08.2026, is awaited, only for the
said purpose, let the present petition be listed for 15.12.2026.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document