Allowed¶20

Amit @ Ammu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2026CRM-M/3240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; connected CRM-M petitions; Punjab and Haryana High Court; N.S. Shekhawat; FIR No. 216/06.07.2024; Police Station Kasola; District Rewari; Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) BNS; Section 25 Arms Act; parity with co-accused; no overt act; disclosure statement of Harender; custody 10 months; no specific attribution; bail bonds/surety bonds; Amit @ Ammu; Harkesh @ Himanshu; Bhanu Pratap alias Khottu; Devender alias Debu; Sachin; Shiv Kumar @ S.P.; bail allowed 02.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. ¶20

Amit @ Ammu Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Amit @ Ammu, not initially named among the assailants in the FIR and arrested on 08.09.2025 following the disclosure statement of co-accused Harender, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 216 dated 06.07.2024, PS Kasola, District Rewari. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Without commenting on the merits, the petitions were allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

It was not in dispute that three similarly placed co-accused, Bhanu Pratap alias Khottu, Devender alias Debu and Sachin, had already been ordered to be released on bail; the court accepted this parity position.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioners had been in custody for about 10 months and there was no specific attribution to either of them.ratio¶19
The order disposes of both connected petitions together, extending the release on bail equally to petitioner Harkesh @ Himanshu in CRM-M-18704-2026.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (N.S. Shekhawat J., oral order), decision dated 02.07.2026: connected regular-bail petitions CRM-M-3240-2026 (Amit @ Ammu) and CRM-M-18704-2026 (Harkesh alias/@ Himanshu) arising from FIR No. 216 dated 06.07.2024, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, under Sections 103(1) of BNS (Section 3(5) deleted later, Section 61(2) added later) and Section 25 of Arms Act. Petitioners, in custody about 10 months, had no specific attribution against either; three similarly placed co-accused (Bhanu Pratap alias Khottu, Devender alias Debu and Sachin) had already been granted bail by this Court (Annexures P-8 to P-10). Without commenting on the merits, both petitions were allowed and the petitioners ordered released on bail subject to bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

¶1

CRM-M-3240-2026 and connected case - 1-

¶2

107+214/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: 02.07.2026. (i) CRM-M-3240-2026 (O&M) Amit @ Ammu …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana …Respondent (ii) CRM-M-18704-2026 (O&M) Harkesh alias Himanshu …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana …Respondent

¶4

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-3240-2026. Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-18704-2026. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. ***

¶5

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

¶6

CRM-25587-2026 in CRM-M-3240-2026

¶7

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

HEMLATA 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶9

CRM-M-3240-2026 and connected case - 2-

¶10

Main cases.

¶11

This order shall dispose of above-said two petitions i.e. CRM-M3240-2026 titled as “Amit @ Ammu Vs. State of Haryana” and CRM-M18704-2026 titled as “Harkesh @ Himanshu Vs. State of Haryana”, whereby the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail to them in case FIR No. 216 dated 06.07.2024 under Sections 103(1) of BNS (Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on and Section 61(2) of BNS added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari (Annexure P-1).

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Amit @ Ammu, petitioner in CRM-M-3240-2026 submits that the petitioner was not initially named as one of the assailants in the FIR (Annexure P-1). Rather, during the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of Harender was recorded by the police and the petitioner was wrongly arrested in the present case on 08.09.2025. He further submits that apart from the above referred evidence, no other incriminating material was collected by the police, which could even remotely suggests the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. He further submits that even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, Shiv Kumar @ S.P. was carrying an illicit weapon and had fired on the deceased all of a sudden, during the course of altercation. He further referred to the orders (Annexures P-8 to P- 10) passed by this Court, whereby concession of bail has been granted to coaccused, namely, Bhanu Pratap alias Khottu, Devender alias Debu and Sachin and submits that on parity also, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Harkesh @ Himanshu, petitioner in CRM-M-18704-2026 also raised the similar

¶14

HEMLATA 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-3240-2026 and connected case - 3-

¶16

arguments and submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and at the worst, he was shown to be present at the place of occurrence. However, the petitioner was wrongly arrested on 08.09.2025, without any evidence against him. Moreover, the petitioner is a student and his case deserves to be sympathetic consideration by this Court.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that serious allegations have been leveled against the present petitioners and they do not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

It is not in dispute that three similarly placed co-accused, namely, Bhanu Pratap alias Khottu, Devender alias Debu and Sachin have been ordered to be released on bail. The petitioners are in custody since last about 10 months and there is no specific attribution to anyone of them.

¶20

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

¶21

02.07.2026		(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE
hemlata
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶22

HEMLATA 2026.07.03 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amit @ Ammu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit @ Ammu v. State of Haryana

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

Harchand Singh Vs State of Punjab

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

Suresh Kumar and Ors. Vs Kawaljeet Singh and Anr.

Mitu Vs State of Haryana

Gurlal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surender and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another