Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Group Assault Murder Case; Holds Mere Presence in Unlawful Assembly Insufficient Without Specific Overt Act
Case Name: Shankar v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-31610-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition for regular bail, holding that in cases of group violence and unlawful assembly, individual criminal liability cannot be presumed in the absence of specific attribution of role or injury. The Court held that mere presence at the scene or accompaniment of co-accused does not justify continued incarceration, particularly where the accused was not named in the FIR, no overt act is attributed, and key witnesses have not supported the prosecution.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No.176 dated 01.10.2023 registered at Police Station Tigaon, Faridabad, for offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 379-B, 452 and 506 IPC, with Sections 325, 120-B and 201 IPC added later. The FIR was lodged on allegations of a violent attack by multiple accused persons on the complainant’s family, allegedly resulting in the homicidal death of Prabhunath, father of the complainant.
During investigation, the petitioner was implicated only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused and was arrested on 16.11.2023. He was neither named in the FIR nor attributed any specific injury or overt act against the deceased or other injured persons. The complainant, during trial, did not implicate the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that investigation was complete, challan had been filed, trial would take considerable time, and several co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court, while one co-accused had even secured bail from the Supreme Court. It was contended that the petitioner’s case stood on a better footing on the principle of parity.
The State opposed the bail plea citing seriousness of allegations and apprehension of absconding. The High Court, however, noted that no specific injury, weapon use, or act resulting in death was attributed to the petitioner, and that the issue of conspiracy or common object would require appreciation of evidence during trial. The Court reiterated the settled principle that collective allegations in group assault cases cannot override the requirement of specific role attribution at the stage of bail.
Decision: The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.