Rishi Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : CRM-M-32560-2025 Decided On : August 20, 2025 Rishi Kumar ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R. K. Singla, Addl. A. G., Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

:

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.261 dated 21.05.2023, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC, 1860 (Sections 302, 325 and 201 added later on), registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa. The prosecution version in the present case is that the complainant namely Pala Ram @ Pola got recorded his statement that he and his two younger brothers - Mansa Ram and Lala Ram were residing with their families, adjacent to the houses of each other. On 16.05.2023, at about 09-09:30 PM, the complainant heard a loud noise in the street. On coming out, he saw a group of assailants i.e. Dulla Ram, Ganesh, Richhpal, Vishal, Vikas, Hardeep and Happy beating his nephew Ram Sharan son of Lala Ram with sticks and rods. He escaped and ran inside his house but was chased by the assailants and again attacked with iron toki and other weapons.

When the complainant went for his nephew's help along with his brother and other family members, all the assailants fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. After some time, some other persons along with previous assailants i.e. Virender, Pawan, Chhinda, Vishal, Vikas, Hardeep, Happy, Rajat and Alisher and some other boys again came there having different weapons and started assaulting complainant and his brother Mansa Ram with iron rods and sticks. They shouted for help and when neighbours and Satpal (son of the complainant) reached for their rescue, all the assailants fled from the spot while threatening all of them. All the three injured were taken to hospital. Unfortunately, Mansa Ram succumbed to his injuries on 23.05.2023. While some of the accused were arrested, but the petitioner is still at large and has approached this Court by way of present petition for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Alisher, which is not admissible in law. There is unexplained delay of five days in lodging the FIR, creating doubt over the story of prosecution. He further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and therefore, he be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition while contending that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, but he actively participated in the occurrence and at the time of alleged occurrence, he was carrying stick (danda) in his hand. The petitioner was

one of the assailants, who inflicted injuries to the complainant and his brother Mansa Ram, as a result of which, Mansa Ram expired during his treatment. He further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is much necessary to get the weapon recovered, which was used in the crime and also for arresting co-accused Sunny, at whose instance the petitioner participated in the crime in question. So, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard.

In the present case, as per the allegations, the complainant party had been brutally attacked by the petitioner and his accomplices, resulting in death of Mansa Ram. Keeping in view the specific grave allegations regarding active participation of the petitioner in the offence in question, no ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. If the petitioner would be allowed benefit of anticipatory bail, it would result in hampering the investigation. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

August 20, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.