Sunny Khosla v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-40497-2025 -1- 






  
 

  
!"
# $%&%!'(
 )
 '* +,-
.





 
 

 

 
(

 /0
 12
 1
1


 

 


 





 ! 
"

!     
#

 $$$

1
 -

3 04(
%
 



 

 
&'(


"  
) !
 ! 
 

+,+(
-

.")/0



!*
* 

*





 *
12
)
34
 
,'

+,+&
* 

 
4,(-40
43,

434-(0

"   ) 
 

+,+(
-

.")/0
 
 
5
"

#  + %
6
12

* 


 

 6
*
 


6

 


**
 


*

4( ,'

+,+&


*



  

*


 




*
 



 

"




#

 
6


6

6

%

CRM-M-40497-2025 -2- 
6 

8 

 




6

 
 
6
 

9 

*

6
% 



 
  





 


 6
  
%





 



 


  





 
6


%


 


 


 6





4'

,'

+,+&
%


 

+, ,'

+,+&
%


 

 


   




( 2

*


 



 





6 



:



 
 
+, ,'

+,+&
%










 

  %





**


12
 



8


%





*  


 
:



 



 
 
2

 *
 

 


 



&  


 
 
 

 

 7 
; 
 
 
 *
 



 


 

6 





* 
 
6




 
 



6
%



 

 
6




   


  
 




8 
 

 

 
2

*
 

  


 *

66*
6


 

8




%


 
 




 



CRM-M-40497-2025 -3-



< %
5

 

 


 
  
* = %


6*
66 




 6

 


*

 

 !


 6
 * 


  

  

66
 


 



 6
 




  

6 

 


 6
%



 


%



**




%

*

 


 


 







  




%


6 



  









   


  
:


!







 
4&3
2  




*
* 7

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.

8.

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

CRM-M-40497-2025 -4unlawful assembly. Under Section 149 of IPC, the liability of the other members, 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.

2

 



*
 

6*
66 




 6 


*

 


 !


 6
The allegations prima facie show his clear involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 IPC. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. 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.

CRM-M-40497-2025 -5That 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. % !*

  

 






 



 


6

 


9 6

 
 

 
6 
 

 
 
 6   








 

 




 




: 

6

 6  4, 2

 


 

  
6 
 




 

8 




6








  

 6




 

6 



 

 
*

 




 













51
 6


 
)
 '* +,-
.