The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man alleged to be a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang in a case of double murder, holding that the role ascribed to him, of arranging firearms and harbouring the assailants, is distinct and remote from the direct commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. [2026 LL (PH) 263]

The Court said that the case against him rests on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.

Justice Manisha Batra observed that the petitioner had already undergone about four years and four months of custody, with only 38 of 91 prosecution witnesses examined, and that further pre-trial incarceration would not serve the ends of justice.

"Since the case against him rests upon disclosure statement of the co-accused, this is the matter best left with the trial Court to decide on the basis of thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial."

The prosecution case arises out of 2022 FIR registered under Sections 148 (Rioting, Armed With Deadly Weapon), 149 (Unlawful Assembly), 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing Disappearance Of Evidence Of Offence), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) IPC, in connection with the fatal shooting of two brothers, Paramjit Singh and Sujit Singh, in Gurugram.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an alleged member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, facilitated the procurement of firearms, harboured the assailants after the incident, and helped them escape. The petitioner was arrested on March 15, 2022, after being named by a co-accused during investigation.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not named in the FIR, that no specific act was attributed to him, that he was not present at the spot and was not named by the other accused, and that no firearm or weapon had been recovered from him. It was urged that he was not alleged to be among the shooters, that he had been in custody since 15.03.2022, and that the prospect of the trial concluding in the near future was bleak.

The State opposed bail, alleging he had conspired with the principal accused and remained in contact with them through encrypted messaging platforms.

Justice Batra observed that the linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the supply of firearms and the harbouring of the co-accused rested primarily on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and on circumstantial inference, and that the role so ascribed was that of a conduit or facilitator, distinct and remote from the direct commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

It added that while the offences alleged were serious, what fell for determination was whether the material against the petitioner justified his continued pre-trial incarceration. Given the limited role ascribed to him, the length of custody and the pace of the trial, the Court held that continued detention would not serve the ends of justice.

Title: Karambir @ Karmu v. State of Haryana

Aearance: Mr. S. S. Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Punam Singh, Ms. Rashi Sehrawat and Mr. Bhanu Udai, Advocates, for the complainant

Click here to read order