Allowed¶34

Gautam Alias Shivam Arya v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2026CRM-M/2740/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No. 393 dated 29.12.2023; Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC; murder; Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali; custody exceeding two years; second bail petition after withdrawal of CRM-M-22551-2025; eyewitnesses PW-2 Shubham Singh and PW-3 Neeraj Tiwari examined, no specific role attributed; witnesses won over apprehension left to trial court; 12 of 22 prosecution witnesses examined; no witness tampering alleged from custody; bail granted; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Sanjay Vashisth, J.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. ¶34

Gautam Alias Shivam Arya Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for more than two years in a case under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC (FIR No. 393 dated 29.12.2023), is entitled to regular bail where the examined complainant and eyewitnesses attributed no specific role to him and there is no allegation of witness influence from custody.

¶32

Court's answer

Given the peculiar facts and circumstances, coupled with the petitioner's custody of more than two years, the Court found it appropriate to consider the prayer for grant of bail.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

It is a matter of record that the complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses (Shubham Singh and Neeraj Tiwari) have already been examined before the trial Court and, during their deposition, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶32

Key takeaways

It is not the prosecution's case that the petitioner, while in custody, attempted to influence, threaten or pressurize any witness directly or through any relative or associate.ratio¶32
The State's apprehension that the witnesses have been won over is a matter to be considered and appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage on the evidence led before it.ratio¶33
In view of the period of incarceration undergone, the progress of trial and the material on record, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sanjay Vashisth, J., oral) allowed a second regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS by Gautam alias Shivam Arya, an accused in FIR No. 393 dated 29.12.2023 under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC, Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (murder of Shivam Shukla). The petitioner had undergone custody of over two years; his first bail petition (CRM-M-22551-2025) had been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.10.2025. The Court noted that the complainant Neeraj Tiwari (PW-3) and alleged eyewitness Shubham Singh (PW-2) had already been examined and, per the Court, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner in their deposition; 12 of 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined; and it was not the prosecution's case that the petitioner had influenced, threatened or pressurized any witness from custody or through relatives/associates. The State's apprehension that witnesses were won over was left for the trial Court to appreciate at the appropriate stage. Bail granted subject to bail/surety bonds, with an express reservation that no observation shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the facts.

¶1

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

211 CRM-M-2740-2026 Decided on :08.07.2026

¶4

Gautam alias Shivam Arya

¶5

. . . Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

¶12

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 393 dated 29.12.2023, registered under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶13

It is relevant to note that the first regular bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-22551-2025, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.10.2025.

¶14

2 . Incident in question occurred at about 3:00 p.m. on 28.03.2023, and the FIR pertaining to the said occurrence was registered on the statement of the complainant, Neeraj Tiwari, which reads as under:

¶15

“ that I am a resident of the above address. My maternal uncle’s son Shivam Shukla son of Late Praveen Kumar Shukla resident of Village Ram Nagar Dohrara, Tehsil Suhabal, Poiice Station Ronahi, District Ayodhya U.P. and Gautam alias Shivam Arya

¶16

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶18

son of Rakesh resident of Village Lohampur, Tehsil Terasi, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda U.P. currently near Dhobighat, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, have both taken Hotel Royal Galaxy near Purani Chowki Road Zirakpur on lease. The hotel was looked after by my maternal uncle's son Shivam Shukla and I work in this hotel Land my maternal uncle's son's friend Shubham Singh son of Shiv Shankar Singh resident of Village Ram Nagar Dohrara, Tehsil Suhabal, Police Station Ronahi, District Ayodhya U.P. also live in this hotel. Yesterday, dated 28.12.2023 around 3:00 PM, Gautam fi alias Shivam Arya son of Rakesh resident of Village Lohampur, Tehsi! Terasi, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda U.P. currently near Dhobighat, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh and his friend Rupali resident of Zirakpur and Nikhil resident of Purani Indira Colony Manimajra Chandigarh came to the hotel. They threatened my brother Shivam Shukla aforesaid, saying that if you want to run a hotel in Zirakpur, you will have to run the hotel according to us, if you do not run the hotel according to us, then we will see you, and they left after giving death threats. Shivam Shukla said that I look after the hotel and I will run the hotel according to my ways. Last night, I was sleeping on the first floor of the hotel and Shubham Singh and Shivam Shukla were sleeping in the room on the ground floor. Today around 3:15 AM in the morning, the main gate of the hotel was banged loudly, then Shivam Shukla woke up his friend Shubham Singh aforesaid lying next to him and also called me. I was putting on clothes when sounds of 'Maar Dita Maar Dita' were coming from the room downstairs in the hotel. Then I went down and saw that Gautam alias Shivam Arya and one unknown person had caught my maternal uncle's son Shivam Shukla by both arms and their accomplices, two-three unknown persons, were beating my maternal uncle's, son Shivam Shukla with kicks and fists, and Nikhil and Radhe were holding knives in their hands. Then Gautam alias Shivam Arya aforesaid stabbed my maternal uncle's son Shivam Shukla in the stomach multiple times with the knife he held, and Radhe struck Shivam Shukla's head with the knife he held. Due to this, Shivam Shukla fell

¶19

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶21

unconscious on the floor, covered in blood, and a large amount of blood had flowed from his body. Then all of them, along with their respective weapons, fled the scene in car number CH-01AD-6095, make Cruz, colour black. There were 3-4 unknown persons with them. I can identify them if I see them. The reason for the enmity is that Gautam alias Shivam Arya, Nikhil, Radhe used to force my maternal uncle's son Shivam Shukla to do wrong things in his hotel But my maternal uncle's son Shivam Shukla did not allow any wrong activities in his hotel. Therefore, today the aforesaid persons, along with three-four other unknown persons, came and murdered him by stabbing him with knives. I can identify the aforesaid unknown persons if I see them. I was going to Police Station Zirakpur to report this. You, along with the police party, met me at Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur. I have dictated the statement to you. Legal action should be taker a gainst Gautam alias Shivam Arya, Nikhil, Radhe and three-four unknown persons. I have dictated the statement to you, heard it, it is correct.Statement giver signed/- Neeraj Tiwari (Hindi)” 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

¶22

name of the petitioner finds mention in the FIR, however, when the complainant and the alleged eye-witness, namely, Shubham Singh and Neeraj Tiwari, appeared as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively, neither any specific role nor the name of the petitioner was attributed in their examination-in-chief. Learned counsel further submits that even in the cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor after declaring the said witnesses hostile, no incriminating material has surfaced against the petitioner. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement of PW-2, wherein he denied having stated before the police that on 28.12.2023 at about 03:00 p.m., accused Gautam @ Shivam Arya and his friend Rupali had visited the hotel and that he,

¶23

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶25

along with Nikhil, had threatened Shivam Shukla. The witness also denied the contents of his statement regarding the occurrence dated 29.12.2023 at about 03:15 a.m., wherein it was alleged that Radhey, Nikhil and Gautam @ Shivam Arya, along with an unknown person, had accompanied each other and that Gautam @ Shivam Arya, armed with a knife (churra), had inflicted multiple blows on the stomach of Shivam Shukla.

¶26

4 . Learned counsel further submits that even the statement of PW-3, Neeraj Tiwari, does not attribute any specific role to the petitioner and, for the sake of brevity, the same is not being reproduced herein.

¶27

On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is highly doubtful. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than two years and, therefore, his continued incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose.

¶28

5 . On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that, in fact, the witnesses have been won over by the petitioner. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that there is no allegation of any pressure being exerted upon the witnesses or any threat having been extended to them either by the petitioner from inside the jail or by any of his relatives or associates. It is further submitted that out of the total 22 prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined so far.

¶29

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶31

6 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

¶32

7 . Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than two years, this Court finds it appropriate to consider the prayer for grant of bail. It is a matter of record that complainant and the alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Shubham Singh and Neeraj Tiwari, have already been examined before the learned trial Court and, during their deposition, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Further, out of the total 22 prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, while being in custody, has made any attempt to influence, threaten, or pressurize any witness either directly or through any relative or associate.

¶33

Apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the witnesses have been won over is a matter which would be considered and appreciated by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage on the basis of the evidence led before it. At this stage, keeping in view the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, progress of the trial, and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

¶34

Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial

¶35

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-2740-2026

¶37

Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶38

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶39

9 . Petition stands disposed of.

¶40

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶41

08.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶42

RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gautam Alias Shivam Arya v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Alias Shivam Arya v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharvan Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Randheer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amardeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surjit Singh@Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Kanchanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab