Dismissed¶6

Karan v. State of Punjab

Regular bail – Section 483 BNSS 2023

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRM-M/23104/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M); regular bail dismissed; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; FIR No. 125 dated 20.04.2024; Sections 302 148 149 120-B IPC; murder; unlawful assembly; common object; Kirch assault; Nijjar Chowk; Police Station City Kharar; District SAS Nagar; complainant Gagandeep Singh partly examined; victim Tajinder Sharma; custody since 25.05.2024; challan presented; gravity of offence; Manisha Batra J; Punjab; State of Punjab; Sanjay Verma advocate; Roshandeep Singh AAG.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. ¶6

Karan Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, named in FIR No. 125 dated 20.04.2024 (Sections 302, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC, Police Station City Kharar) for alleged participation in an unlawful assembly causing the homicidal death of Tajinder Sharma, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶1

Court's answer

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Though the complainant's partly recorded examination-in-chief does not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot derive benefit from it because the witness's examination is yet to be completed.

¶6

Key takeaways

The observations made in the judgment are only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail - Section 483 BNSS 2023 - Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.) dismisses bail petition of Karan, specifically named in FIR No. 125 dated 20.04.2024, PS City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC, for alleged membership of an unlawful assembly whose common object was assault causing the homicidal death of Tajinder Sharma at Nijjar Chowk on 15.04.2024; although the complainant's partly recorded examination-in-chief discloses neither the petitioner's presence at the spot nor any specific overt act or weapon attributed to him, his examination remains incomplete and he cannot derive benefit from it; allegations are grave, trial is progressing without undue delay, and the petitioner is in custody since arrest on 25.05.2024; bail refused at this stage, observations expressly confined to the bail question and not to the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 28.08.2025 Pronounced on : 05.09.2025

¶4

Karan ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present:Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶10

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶11

Prayer in this petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 125 dated 20.04.2024, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

¶12

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Gagandeep Singh alleging therein that on 15.04.2024, his friend Tajinder Sharma (victim) had come to his house and had asked him to accompany him to meet his old acquaintance Prateek, Karan (petitioner), Jamaha and Dheeraj Kumar. He had also told the complainant that they were having grudges against him since long and now they had given him time to meet at Nijjar Chowk for the purpose of explaining his part. On asking of the victim, the complainant accompanied him to Nijjar Chowk to meet his above said persons. They had reached there at about 12:30 AM. One

¶13

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶15

youth and a female was seen coming on an Activa scooter from the wrong side of the road. One motorbike was following them. The victim identified the bike riders as Karan, Jamaha and Dheeraj. All of them stopped near the complainant and started having conversation with the victim. A verbal altercation took place between them. After some time, a quarrel took place and the female, who was being addressed as ‘Sonia’, grabbed the collar of the victim. Rest of them opened an assault upon the victim and gave several blows with Kirch and also gave fist blows, thereby injuring him seriously. The complainant rushed for rescue of the victim but he too was tried to be assaulted. He somehow saved himself. The victim was further assaulted. He had fallen on the ground and then the assailant fled away from the spot. The victim was taken to hospital but died during the course of treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 25.05.2024 and is in custody since then. Three more co-accused were arrested. Challan has been presented against them and they are facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶16

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 25.05.2024. The complainant has since been examined in chief and has given a different version. No specific injury or weapon has been attributed to the petitioner. No recovery has been effected from him. The trial would take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶19

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

¶20

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted victim Tajinder Sharma, thereby causing his homicidal death. He was specifically named in the FIR. He is alleged to have actively participated in commission of subject crime. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-3, which is a copy of examination in chief of the complainant, to show that the complainant has not disclosed the presence of the petitioner at the spot. Though, in his partly recorded statement, the complainant is not shown to have attributed any specific overt act to the petitioner, however, his examination is yet to be completed. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the partly recorded statement of this witness. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature. Trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the gravity of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

¶21

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-23104-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶24

05.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Parveen Sharma JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶25

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Karan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dikashender Vs State of Haryana

Rekha Alias Rekha Rani Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Mahajan Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs Yamuna Parshad

Sarwan Singh @ Sama Vs State of Punjab

Ram Narayan Singh @ Gagan Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab