Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Dinesh vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -1-
and other connected matters.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130
Date of decision: 16.03.2026.
(1)
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M).
RAM DINESH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(2)
CRM-M-50788-2025 (O&M).
RAM DINESH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(3)
CRM-M-53718-2025 (O&M).
DIPIN
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -2-
and other connected matters.
(4)
CRM-M-50191-2025 (O&M).
DIPIN
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(5)
CRM-M-52858-2025 (O&M).
ANKIT ALIAS GURU
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(6)
CRM-M-54192-2025 (O&M).
ANKIT @ GURU
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(7)
CRM-M-54511-2025 (O&M).
RAHUL TOMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -3-
and other connected matters.
(8)
CRM-M-54196-2025 (O&M).
RAHUL TOMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(9)
CRM-M-56063-2025 (O&M).
YASH ALIAS PANDU
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
(10)
CRM-M-56021-2025 (O&M).
YASH ALIAS PANDU
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
***
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -4-
and other connected matters.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-50966-2025 and
CRM-M-50788-2025.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-56063-2025 and
CRM-M-56021-2025.
Mr. Ankit Karna, Advocate, and
Ms. Preeti Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-54196-2025 and
CRM-M-54511-2025.
Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-54192-2025 and
CRM-M-52858-2025.
Mr. Akash Dalal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-50191-2025 and
CRM-M-53718-2025.
Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
All the aforesaid ten petitions, seeking the concession of regular bail by the respective petitioners, are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the two FIRs registered in reference to the same occurrence and involve interconnected facts and issues. 2 The details of the cases and the respective FIRs wherein they have been filed are tabulated as under: -
Sr. No. FIR No.22 dated 21.01.2024, FIR No.23 dated under Section(s) 285, 307, 384, 21.01.2024, under 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Section(s) 307 and 34 Code, 1860, (Sections 120-B, 109, of the Indian Penal 111, 386, 387, 412 and 507 of the Code, 1860, (Sections IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the 120-B, 109 and 111 of 4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -5-
and other connected matters.
Arms Act, 1959 added later on), the IPC and Sections 25 registered at Police Station and 27 of the Arms Act, Gohana City, District Sonepat. 1959 added later on), registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat.
1 CRM-M-50966-2025 CRM-M-50788-2025
titled as titled as
Ram Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana. Ram Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana.
2 CRM-M-53718-2025 CRM-M-50191-2025
titled as titled as
Dipin Vs. State of Haryana Dipin Vs. State of
Haryana
3 CRM-M-54192-2025 CRM-M-52858-2025
titled as titled as
Ankit alias Guru State of Haryana Ankit alias Guru State of Haryana 4 CRM-M-54511-2025 CRM-M-54196-2025 titled as titled as Rahul Tomar Vs. State of Haryana Rahul Tomar Vs. State of Haryana 5 CRM-M-56063-2025 CRM-M-56021-2025 titled as titled as Yash alias Pandu Vs. State of Yash alias Pandu Vs. Haryana State of Haryana 3 For brief reference, the facts, are being taken from CRM-M- 50966-2025 titled as Ram Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana. 4 Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the registration of FIR No.22 dated 21.01.2024 on the statement made by the complainant Neeraj Gupta son of Rajender Gupta, resident of Hukam Chand Mandi, Gohana, are that he stated that he was running a sweet shop under the name and style of "
"Lala Maturam Rajender Prasad" situated near Shiv Chowk, Purani Anaj Mandi, Gohana. According to the complainant, on 21.01.2024 at about 10:30
5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -6- and other connected matters.
a.m., while he along with his staff was present at the shop and his younger brother Raman was sitting at the cash counter, three unidentified persons, with their faces covered, arrived on a motorcycle from the side of Old Anaj Mandi, Gohana and stopped in front of the shop. It is alleged that the said persons opened indiscriminate fire, firing approximately 30 to 40 rounds, most of which were directed towards the shop and with an intention to kill. It was further alleged that at that time Bijender, a resident of village Mahara, who had come to the shop for supplying milk, was also fired upon by the assailants. The complainant stated that while fleeing from the spot, the assailants threw a note in front of the shop demanding a ransom of Rs.2 crores and threatened that in the event the said amount was not arranged, they would kill the person running the shop. The complainant further stated that the identity of the assailants could not be ascertained as their faces were covered and sought appropriate legal action against the unknown persons, whereupon the above FIR came to be registered.
5 Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the registration of FIR No.23 dated 21.01.2024, on the basis of the statement made by Bijender son of Krishan, resident of village Mahra, District Sonipat, are that on 21.01.2024, at about 10:30 a.m., he had gone to deliver milk at the shop of Lala Matu Ram Halwai (Confectioner) at Gohana. It is alleged that at that time, three unknown persons arrived on a motorcycle from the side of the Old Grain Market and after positioning themselves near the idol of Lord Shiva, opened indiscriminate fire towards the shop of Lala Matu Ram Halwai. The complainant stated that, upon hearing the gunshots, he got frightened and attempted to run inside the shop, during which he sustained a gunshot injury 6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -7- and other connected matters.
on the right side of his head. It was further stated that thereafter, the driver of Lala Matu Ram Halwai transported him to PGI, Khanpur Kalan for medical treatment, where he was provided first aid by the attending doctor. The complainant further stated that he subsequently came to know that the assailants had fled from the spot towards the side of the Grain Market. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought appropriate legal action against the three unknown persons, whereupon the present FIR came to be registered.
6 The details of the role attributed to each of the petitioner's hereinabove is as under: -
Sr. Case No. Title FIR No Role attributed No. 1 CRM- RAM FIR No.22 dated • Hosted a M- DINESH V/S 21.01.2024, under meeting at his 50966- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307, residence where 2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the the conspiracy Indian Penal Code, was allegedly 1860, (Sections 120- finalized.
B, 109, 111, 386, 387,
412 and 507 of the • Provided the
IPC and Sections 25 pen and paper
and 27 of the Arms used for
Act, 1959 added later preparing the
on), registered at extortion slips.
Police Station Gohana • A notebook
City, District Sonepat. recovered from him contained imprints of the
7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -8- and other connected matters.
CRM- RAM FIR No.23 dated same message M- DINESH V/S 21.01.2024, under used at the 50788- STATE OF Section(s) 307 and 34 crime scene. 2025 HARYANA of the Indian Penal • Conducted recce Code, 1860, (Sections of the target 120-B, 109 and 111 of location prior to the IPC and Sections the incident.
25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later • Assisted in on), registered at procuring the Police Station Gohana motorcycle used City, District Sonepat. in the commission of the offence.
2 CRM- DIPIN V/S FIR No.22 dated • Participated in
M- STATE OF 21.01.2024, under the planning
53718- HARYANA Section(s) 285, 307, meeting held at
2025 384, 506 and 34 of the the residence of
Indian Penal Code, Ramdinesh.
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387, • Assisted in
412 and 507 of the drafting the
IPC and Sections 25 extortion slips
and 27 of the Arms demanding Rs.2
Act, 1959 added later crores.
on), registered at • Conducted
Police Station Gohana surveillance City, District Sonepat. (recce) of Maturam shop prior to the incident.
CRM- DIPIN V/S FIR No.23 dated • Guided the M- STATE OF 21.01.2024, under assailants 50191- HARYANA Section(s) 307 and 34 regarding entry 2025 of the Indian Penal and exit routes.
Code, 1860, (Sections • Assisted in
120-B, 109 and 111 of procuring the
the IPC and Sections motorcycle used
25 and 27 of the Arms in the
Act, 1959 added later commission of
on), registered at the offence.
Police Station Gohana
City, District Sonepat.
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -9-
and other connected matters.
3 CRM- ANKIT FIR No.23 dated • Conducted recce
M- ALIAS 21.01.2024, under along with co-
52858- GURU V/S Section(s) 307 and 34 accused Rohit.
2025 STATE OF of the Indian Penal
HARYANA Code, 1860, (Sections • Assisted Raman
120-B, 109 and 111 of in delivering the the IPC and Sections stolen car used 25 and 27 of the Arms in the Act, 1959 added later commission of on), registered at the offence.
Police Station Gohana • Facilitated City, District Sonepat. transfer of extortion money as part of the CRM- ANKIT @ FIR No.22 dated conspiracy.
M- GURU V/S 21.01.2024, under
54192- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307,
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code,
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387,
412 and 507 of the
IPC and Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 added later
on), registered at
Police Station Gohana
City, District Sonepat.
4 CRM- RAHUL FIR No.22 dated • Owner/driver of
M- TOMAR V/S 21.01.2024, under the Scorpio
54511- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307, vehicle used for
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the transporting
Indian Penal Code, weapons.
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387, • Accompanied
412 and 507 of the co-accused
IPC and Sections 25 Harvinder and
and 27 of the Arms Raman to
Act, 1959 added later deliver weapons
on), registered at to Rohit.
Police Station Gohana • Assisted in
City, District Sonepat. transferring extortion money.
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -10-
and other connected matters.
CRM- RAHUL FIR No.23 dated
M- TOMAR V/S 21.01.2024, under
54196- STATE OF Section(s) 307 and 34
2025 HARYANA of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, (Sections
120-B, 109 and 111 of
the IPC and Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 added later
on), registered at
Police Station Gohana
City, District Sonepat.
5 CRM- YASH ALIAS FIR No.22 dated • Associated with
M- PANDU V/S 21.01.2024, under co-accused
56063- STATE OF Section(s) 285, 307, through
2025 HARYANA 384, 506 and 34 of the Lakshay (cousin
Indian Penal Code, of Sahil).
1860, (Sections 120-
B, 109, 111, 386, 387, • Roommate of
412 and 507 of the accused Rahul
IPC and Sections 25 during college.
and 27 of the Arms • Engaged in
Act, 1959 added later communication
on), registered at with other
Police Station Gohana accused persons City, District Sonepat. involved in the offence.
• Assisted in transferring CRM- YASH ALIAS FIR No.23 dated money related M- PANDU V/S 21.01.2024, under to the incident. 56021- STATE OF Section(s) 307 and 34 • Allegedly 2025 HARYANA of the Indian Penal involved in Code, 1860, (Sections other criminal 120-B, 109 and 111 of cases.
the IPC and Sections • Recovery of 25 and 27 of the Arms mobile phone Act, 1959 added later and ₹4,000/-
on), registered at from his Police Station Gohana possession.
City, District Sonepat.
7 Counsel for the petitioners contend that in the aforesaid incident
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -11-
and other connected matters.
of firing at the shop of complainant Neeraj Gupta resulting in FIR No.22, one Bijender had also suffered injuries for which a separate FIR No.23 dated 21.01.2024 under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC (Section 120-B, 109 and 111 of IPC and Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, added later on) was also registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat. 8 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submit that the petitioners have been in custody since April/May 2024 and have undergone an actual custody of nearly 02 years. It is further contended that the trial has made negligible progress. In FIR No. 22 dated 21.01.2024, out of a total of 84 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far, whereas in FIR No. 23 dated 21.01.2024, out of 45 witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel further submit that none of the petitioners, except Rukumuddin, are involved in any other criminal case apart from the instant two FIRs. Insofar as petitioner Rukumuddin is concerned, it is stated that he had been nominated as an accused in FIR No. 266 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gohana, however, he has already been acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 17.12.2022. 9 It is contended that the petitioner(s) herein are alleged to be the co-conspirators in the incident of firing at the shop of Neeraj Gupta (complainant in FIR No.22) wherein the victim Bijender was incidentally caught in the cross-fire as he attempted to enter into the shop. The petitioner herein never actually participated in the act of firing at the spot. It is further contended that at the time of the incident, the petitioners were of young age. Petitioner Yash @ Pendu was about 18 years, petitioner Rahul about 19 years, petitioner Ankit @ Guru about 20 years, petitioner Deepak about 23 years and 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -12- and other connected matters.
petitioner Ram Dinesh was about 28 years of age. It is further submitted that even though it is alleged that some of the petitioners assisted in handling extortion money, however, the FIR does not disclose that any extortion money was ever paid. Besides, no ransom money, if any, has ever been recovered. There is also no description of the day, month, year, time or the amount which was allegedly paid.
10 Learned counsel submits that, keeping in view the youthful age of the petitioners, their clean criminal antecedents, and the absence of any direct role attributed to them in the commission of the overt act of firing or for seeking ransom coupled with the stage of the trial and the period of custody already undergone, the petitioners deserve to be considered for the grant of concession of regular bail.
11 Learned state counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners have been found to be co-conspirators acting in concert with the main accused, and that they were actively involved in extending assistance in the execution of the offence, including the firing of the gun shots at the premises of complainant Neeraj Gupta. It is contended that during the course of the occurrence, approximately 50 rounds were fired and a ransom demand of Rs.2 crores was also raised on behalf of Himanshu @ Bhau and that in a social media post, the above gang had also undertaken responsibility of the said incident. It is also pointed out that one of the persons present at the spot, namely Bijender, sustained injuries in the said firing incident, in respect of which a separate FIR has been registered. It is further contended that since the petitioners had extended logistical and operational support to the main accused, their role cannot be treated as peripheral.
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::
CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -13-
and other connected matters.
12 Learned state counsel, however, does not dispute the period of
custody undergone by the petitioners, the lack of criminal antecedents apart from present incident as well as absence of any substantive recovery from the petitioners except for certain cash and mobiles. It is also fairly conceded that neither the weapons used in the commission of the offence nor the vehicles involved in the occurrence were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statements from the present petitioners. 13 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the role attributed to them, the absence of criminal antecedents; the period of actual custody of nearly 02 years and the fact that no substantive recovery of weapons or vehicles used in the incident has been effected either from the possession of the petitioners or pursuant to their disclosure statements, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petitions. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
14 It is made clear that in the event of the petitioners misusing the concession of bail and on being involved in any other case of such or similar nature, the State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence or intimidate any prosecution witnesses in any manner, directly or indirectly. 15 The observation made hereinabove shall be not construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case 13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 ::: CRM-M-50966-2025 (O&M) -14- and other connected matters.
on the basis of available material.
16 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
17 A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file(s).
March 16, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 11:04:20 :::