Regular bail granted where accused lacked a specific shooter role or presence at the crime scene.

The six petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in FIR No. 26 dated 25 January 2025, registered at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala, for offences including murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting and offences under the Arms Act.

The FIR arose from a shooting incident in which Harbilas was killed and Puneet Dang and Vijay Dutt alias Google Pandit were initially shown as victims.

The prosecution alleged that the incident stemmed from a dispute concerning the sale and registration of a 95-marla plot and the alleged non-return of money paid in relation to the transaction.

During investigation, 26 accused persons were allegedly identified; one died in an encounter, one was discharged, and several co-accused were granted bail.

The petitioners had remained in custody for periods ranging from approximately one year, two months to one year, seven months as of 13 September 2026.

The prosecution attributed different roles to them: Ajay Kumar alias Ajay Garg was alleged to be connected with the land dispute and conspiracy; Sunny Tomar was alleged to have collected and supplied firearms; Manjeet alias Padi and Suraj were alleged to have handled or supplied weapons; Rajan was alleged to have conducted reconnaissance and driven the escape vehicle; and Abhishek alias Mangu was alleged to be one of the shooters, primarily on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement.

No recovery was effected from Ajay, Sunny, Manjeet or Abhishek.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the offences and the possibility of witness intimidation, evidence tampering or absconding.

Whether Ajay Kumar alias Ajay Garg, Sunny Tomar, Manjeet alias Padi, Suraj, Rajan and Abhishek alias Mangu were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS during the pendency of trial, having regard to their alleged roles, custody period and the stage of the proceedings?

Whether the specific allegation that Rajan conducted reconnaissance and facilitated the shooters’ escape justified denying him bail despite his period of incarceration?

Whether the absence of a specific allegation that Abhishek alias Mangu was a shooter in the depositions of material witnesses, together with the absence of recovery from him, warranted grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody; the provision corresponds to Section 439 of the CrPC.

The Court considered the established bail principles requiring assessment of the accused’s specific role, the nature of the allegations, the evidence presently available, the period of custody, the likelihood of trial delay, and the risks of witness intimidation or interference with the administration of justice.

The Court also applied the principle that observations at the stage of bail are tentative and must not prejudice the independent assessment of evidence by the trial court.

The Court distinguished the petitioners on the basis of their alleged individual roles rather than treating the gravity of the common FIR as determinative.

Although the State alleged that Sunny, Manjeet and Suraj facilitated the supply of firearms, and that Ajay was connected with the underlying conspiracy, there was no specific allegation that these petitioners fired shots or were present at the place of occurrence; additionally, no recovery had been made from them.

Their substantial periods of custody and the likelihood that the trial would take time further supported bail.

Rajan was treated differently because the prosecution specifically alleged that he conducted reconnaissance, kept the vehicle ready for escape and drove the accused away after the shooting; the Court held that assessment of this role required consideration by the trial court and found no substantial ground for bail at that stage.

As to Abhishek, the Court noted that material witnesses did not identify him as one of the shooters, his alleged involvement rested on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and no incriminating article had been recovered from him.

These circumstances justified extending bail to him as well.

The Court allowed CRM-M-29182-2026, CRM-M-28248-2026, CRM-M-30301-2026 and CRM-M-30975-2026, granting regular bail to Ajay Kumar alias Ajay Garg, Sunny Tomar, Manjeet alias Padi and Suraj.

It also allowed CRM-M-45811-2026, granting regular bail to Abhishek alias Mangu.

The five petitioners were directed to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent trial or Magistrate court, subject to their not being required in any other case, and were restrained from threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial, which was to be decided independently and expeditiously.