Lekhraj vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-15857-2026 1
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15857-2026
DECIDED ON: 04.11.2026
LEKHRAJ .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed for cancellation of the order
dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Palwal, whereby regular bail has been granted to the respondent
No. 2 on the basis of wrong statement given by the investigating officer
in FIR No. 646 Dated 12.08.2024 u/s 109, 115(2), 190, 191(3), 351 (2) of
BNS 2023 (section 103 (1) of BNS 2023 added later on) (Sections 307,
323, 149, 148, 506 IPC) (section 302 IPC added later on) Police
registered at Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal.
2. In the present case, complainant’s son namely Akash was
allegedly murdered by the accused persons.
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 2
3. On 08.09.2026, after hearing the submissions advanced by
counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed:-
“1. xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
2. Present petition has been filed by the
complainant, namely Lekhraj, whose son namely
Akash, was allegedly murdered by the accused
persons.
3. FIR was registered on 12.08.2024. The
first regular bail petition filed by respondent No.2–
Pawan before learned Sessions Court was dismissed
on 12.11.2025. Thereafter, respondent No.2
approached this Court by filing CRM-M-68018-2025,
which was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage, vide
order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-5).
4. Instead of filing a second bail petition
before this Court, if so advised, respondent No.2 again
approached learned Sessions Court and filed a second
regular bail petition. In the said proceedings,
statement of SI Mahabir (Investigating Officer), was
recorded, wherein role attributed to respondent No.2
was stated to have been diluted. On the basis thereof,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order
dated 04.02.2026, allowed the second regular bail
petition and granted bail to respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that impugned order granting bail to
respondent No.2, is not sustainable in law. It is argued
that principle of judicial propriety appears to have
been overlooked, as there is no discussion in the
impugned order with regard to the fact that respondent
No.2 had earlier approached this Court by filing
CRM-M-68018-2025, which was subsequently
withdrawn, and thereafter approached learned
Sessions Court by filing a second bail petition. It is
further submitted that, in the said proceedings, role
attributed to respondent No.2 was sought to be diluted
on the basis of the subsequent statement of the
Investigating Officer, SI Mahabir.
6. List again on 15.09.2026.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned
District and Sessions Judge, Palwal, who shall obtain
a report from learned Presiding Officer, who granted
bail to respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.02.2026,
specifically with regard to the aforesaid
circumstances, including filing and subsequent
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 3
withdrawal of CRM-M-68018-2025 before this Court
and filing of the subsequent second regular bail
petition before learned Sessions Court.”
4. Today, in compliance with the directions issued by this
Court, a report vide letter No. 945 dated 11.09.2026 has been forwarded
by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palwal,
which is appended to the present petition.
Relevant extract of the said report reads as under:-
“The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated
08.09.2026, has directed the undersigned to submit a
report with regard to overlooking the principle of
judicial propriety, as there is no discussion in the
impugned order, i.e. order dated 4th February 2026,
whereby the undersigned granted bail to respondent
No. 2, with regard to the fact that respondent No. 2
had earlier approached the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court by filing CRM-M No. 68018 of
2025, which was subsequently withdrawn, and
thereafter approached this Court by filing a second
bail petition.
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that,
in the bail application (Annexure-I) which was
decided vide order dated 4th February 2026, the
applicant Pawan Kumar had nowhere mentioned
about the filing of CRM-M-68018 of 2025 by him
before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Rather, in the affidavit (Annexure-II) filed by
grandmother of applicant-accused, attached with the
bail application, it was submitted that the said bail
application was his second bail application. It was
further mentioned that no other bail application was
pending in any Court of law.
Moreover, in the entire reply (Annexure-III) filed
by the prosecution, there was no mention of the filing,
decision or withdrawal of CRM-M No. 68018 of 2025
with respect to the present applicant, accused Pawan
Kumar.
Moreover, alongwith the reply filed by the
investigating agency, a proforma (Annexure-IV) was
also attached point No. 3 of which relates to whether
any order had been passed on the bail application of
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 4
the applicant by the Hon'ble High Court or the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the corresponding
column was answered as "No". Similarly, at point No.
4 of the said proforma, wherein it was asked whether
any application of the applicant was pending before
the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, the corresponding column was also answered
as "No".
Furthermore, in the application, it was
specifically mentioned that it was the second bail
application. Since the earlier bail application had
been decided by the undersigned, mention of the fact
that the present application was a second bail
application could not have led the undersigned to
infer that it was, in fact, a third bail application. Had
the accused mentioned in the application that it was
his third bail application, the undersigned would
definitely have come to know about the earlier
proceedings and the decision on his bail application
by the Hon'ble High Court.
Thus, the aforesaid omission was on account of
the fact that the undersigned was not in the knowledge
of the filing and subsequent withdrawal of CRM-M
No. 68018 of 2025, or of any order passed therein
with respect to the present applicant. Consequently,
the undersigned could not have discussed or
mentioned the fact regarding the filing of CRM-M No.
68018 of 2025 in the order dated 4th February 2026.
The Investigating Officer being the principal
person upon whose investigation the Court relies with
respect to the criminal case, he specifically submitted
before the Court that the present accused Pawan and
co-accused Sachin were found involved only in the
incident which occurred at Government Hospital,
Palwal, and that they were not involved in the first
occurrence which had taken place at Rajeev Colony,
Palwal.
He further stated that accused Pawan has not
attributed any injury to deceased Akash, son of
Lekhraj (Annexure-V).
When the Investigating Officer himself had
categorically placed these facts before the Court, at
that stage, undersigned in good faith relied upon said
version of the Investigating Officer.
Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, on
account of being oblivious of the filing of CRM-M No.
68018 of 2025 and its subsequent withdrawal, the said
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 5
fact could not be discussed in the order dated 4th
February 2026.
Had this fact been within the knowledge of the
undersigned, undersigned could not even think of
overlooking the principle of judicial propriety.
Accordingly, the present compliance report is
submitted for kind information and perusal.
Thanking you.”
5. In the FIR, accused Aman and Pawan (respondent No.2) are
alleged to have inflicted hammer blows on the head of Akash (son of the
complainant), with an intention to kill him.
6. While granting regular bail to respondent No. 2–Pawan, vide
impugned order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed on his second
bail application, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, recorded in
paragraph Nos.3 and 7, that investigation qua Pawan (respondent No.2)
already stood completed and that the charge-sheet/final report under
Section 193 of BNSS, had also been filed by the concerned Investigating
Officer.
In such circumstances, instead of examining the final report
and the material collected during investigation, it is difficult to
comprehend as to how and under what circumstances, at the stage of
consideration of the matter for framing of charges, learned Trial Court
proceeded to record the statement of the Investigating Officer, who
appeared before it on 19.12.2025. In his statement, Investigating Officer
stated that accused Pawan and Sachin were involved only in the incident
which took place at GH, Palwal, and were not involved in the first
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 6
occurrence at Rajiv Colony, Palwal. He further stated that Pawan had not
caused any injury to deceased Akash.
7. At the stage of framing of charges, learned Trial Judge was
expected to independently examine the record, including the final report
and the material accompanying the same, with the assistance of learned
defence counsel as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Recording the
statement of the Investigating Officer at that stage, was not contemplated
in law, particularly when he had not been summoned to depose as a
prosecution witness, in terms of the list of witnesses appended to the final
report.
8. If the statements of police officials/Investigating Officers are
to be recorded and relied upon while deciding bail applications,
evidentiary and procedural significance of the final report already
submitted before the Court, would stand seriously undermined.
9. Moreover, it was also expected of the Investigating Officer,
who had appeared before learned Trial Court at the time of consideration
of the bail application, to disclose the factum of an earlier bail petition
having been filed by the same accused before this Court, i.e. CRM-M-
68018-2025, which was subsequently withdrawn on 08.12.2025
(Annexure P-5).
10. Concealment of the aforesaid material fact by the accused in
his bail application, coupled with the failure of Investigating Officer to
bring the same to the notice of the Court, raises a serious concern and
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 7
deserves to be deprecated, particularly in order to maintain judicial
propriety and sanctity of the judicial proceedings.
11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned
order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Palwal, granting regular bail to respondent No. 2–
Pawan, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, bail already
granted to respondent No. 2–Pawan stands cancelled.
12. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2–Pawan submits that more than 15 persons were named
in the FIR, whereas only five persons were ultimately charge-sheeted. It
is, therefore, contended that complainant's version itself suffers from an
element of falsity and that the charges have rightly been dropped.
13. This Court has not commented upon the merits of the
evidence, as the statutory obligation to consider the material on record
and independently apply judicial mind while framing charges rests with
learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is also required to independently
examine the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned, before proceeding to frame charges under the relevant
provisions of law. Therefore, submission advanced by learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 does not warrant consideration, at this stage.
14. Needless to observe that this Court is not required to
undertake an examination of the entire final report, as the same primarily
falls within the domain and statutory responsibility of learned Trial Judge
at the stage of consideration of the question of framing of charges.
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-15857-2026 8
15. Let a copy of this order be treated as an advisory to learned
Trial Court to the effect that it ought not to place reliance upon oral
statements made by the Investigating Officer, particularly when such
statements are not supported by the investigation conducted or the
documentary material forming part of the record.
However, the aforesaid observations shall not be construed
as expressing any opinion regarding involvement or non-involvement of
the accused in the first part of the incident, as that question is to be
determined by learned Trial Court during the course of trial, on the basis
of the evidence that may be adduced before it.
16. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands
disposed of.
17. However, it shall remain open for respondent No.2–Pawan
to avail the remedy of filing a fresh bail application, before an
appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
04.11.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned  Yes/No
Whether reportable  Yes/No
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document