Devender @ Lala vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-31284-2026 -1-
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31284-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
Devender @ Lala ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana.
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. This is the first bail petition, filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.
261 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 115, 190, 191(2),
351(2) of the BNS (Section 238 BNS added later on) (Sections 302, 321,
149, 147, 506 and 201 IPC), at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad.
(Annexure P-1).
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that during the intervening night
of 20/21-07-2025, the complainant received a telephonic call informing him
that a quarrel had taken place with his brother, Deepak. He initially
accompanied the caller in search of his brother but returned home when
Deepak could not be found. Thereafter, on receiving another call, he again
went to the spot where Mahender, his family members and certain other
persons were allegedly present. Upon asking about his brother’s
whereabouts, he was allegedly beaten by the people present there.
SANJAY
2026.09.01 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-31284-2026 -2-
Subsequently, in the morning, the complainant was informed by the police
that Deepak had died and his dead body was lying at B.K.H. Hospital.
3. D uring investigation, the petitioner and other co-accused were
arrested. The prosecution seeks to connect the petitioner with the occurrence
primarily on the basis of CCTV footage, contending that his presence at the
place of occurrence reflects his active participation along with the other
accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no eye-witness account
and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence.
He submits that the CCTV footage, itself does not support the allegation of
his continued or active participation in the occurrence. Attention of the
Court has been drawn to the CCTV Footage Analysis (Annexure P-3)
wherein the petitioner is stated to be visible at about 01:22 a.m. It is
contended that though the footage analysis placed on record covers different
timings from approximately 1:13-35 a.m. till 02:56 a.m., except for the
aforesaid solitary instance at 01:22 a.m., the presence of the petitioner is not
reflected at any other point of time. It is, thus, argued that mere presence at
one point of time cannot, by itself, conclusively establish active
participation in the occurrence, which is ultimately a matter to be tested
during trial.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has
remained in custody since 01.12.2025, has clean antecedents, the
investigation already stands concluded and nothing further remains to be
recovered from him. It is also argued that similarly placed co-accused(s)
SANJAY
2026.09.01 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-31284-2026 -3-
have already been granted the concession of bail and, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to the same benefit on the principle of parity.
6. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting
that the petitioner is visible in the CCTV footage at the place of occurrence
and that the same indicates his participation in the crime. However, during
the course of arguments, learned State counsel could not point out any
material distinction between the role attributed to the present petitioner and
that of the co-accused who has already been granted the concession of bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the record.
8. A circumstance which weighs with this Court is that similarly
placed co-accused have already been granted bail. Learned State counsel
has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature so far as the role
attributed to the present petitioner is concerned. In such circumstances, the
plea of parity raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot simply be brushed
aside. T he trial is likely to take time and continued incarceration of the
petitioner, particularly when the investigation is already complete and his
further custodial interrogation is not required, would not serve any useful
purpose.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
keeping in mind that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration
since 01.12.2025; the investigation stands completed; there is no eye
witness account; nothing incriminating has been recovered from him; the
petitioner is also stated to have clean antecedents and no material has been
brought to the notice of this Court to suggest that, if released on bail, he is
SANJAY
2026.09.01 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-31284-2026 -4-
likely to abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the
witnesses, the present petition is allowed.
10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on
furnishing the requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
11. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing the same before the
Court or any other authority. He shall furnish his complete address at the
time of execution of the bail bonds and shall intimate any change thereof to
the trial Court. He shall also not leave India without prior permission of the
trial Court.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(NEERJA K. KALSON)
31.08.2026 JUDGE
SN
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
SANJAY
2026.09.01 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document