Ombati v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-15575-2026 -1-
!"#$% & '! "%&
! !"
!
# ! ! !"
$
%
! ! !"
& '
%
#
%%
# (%% %) )
# %%
)
* %#% ( )*
+ , -
-) .
#
, .
) / .
# -
%) , *%
) .
#
+(
%
&1$
2 * 3 3 ) ! !$ 4
52*67
3
%
%
#
* " !
$! !
$47) 4!7) 9 ) 94!7 94$7
2 * ) ! !$ 4
52*67 4 #
$47
CRM-M-15575-2026 -2- %
% 7 %#
#
1) / # (
!
)
!! !
#
%
%
##
% #%
%
₹ $) :; % %
# %
) ## .)
)
#
% % #
)
. ##
% #%
)
%
%
%
3#3 %
#%
%
3
%
##
2
%
%
)
3
#
.
(8)
#
<
# ## /
2 =
> ?
! !
"! ! #%
CRM-M-15575-2026 -3-
#% $ 8
%
%
% % %#
#
)
%
$47
%
;## @3
< #
%
# %%;
#%% < .
, #% ) %
##
# #
#
%
. #)
##
#
#
A
%
% '
)
%
% & ) %
% %
%
%
##
#3
)
#)
) #
# #
#
)
%
# ) < %
8 ) )
< %
CRM-M-15575-2026 -4- ?
%
%
%
%
"
%% % ;##
#
#
)
# %
2 ;## .
3#3 #
%
%%
3
#
%
%
%
% #
#
#
##
%%
%
linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 190 BNS, which has the following ingredients;
1. There must be an unlawful assembly;
2. Commission of an offence may be by any member of the unlawful assembly; and
3. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
7.
From a perusal of the above ingredients, it is apparent that even mere presence in the unlawful assembly but with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly. Under Section 190 of BNS, the liability of the other
CRM-M-15575-2026 -5members, for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object or not. Such knowledge can reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of the participants at or before the scene of action. Since, in the present case, the petitioner is shown to have joined the co-accused and actively participated in the occurrence and as the allegations prima facie show her involvement therein, therefore, the requisite knowledge that the subject offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object, can be imputed.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as she along with the co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed.
Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail.
8.
In light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances
CRM-M-15575-2026 -6as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9.
It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 10.
Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. , - !. /+