P&H High Court Rejects Bail Plea in Murder Conspiracy: Petitioner Linked to Revenge Killing Despite Being in Jail

Case Name: Gourav Sharma @ Goru Bacha vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-17796-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant regular bail to the petitioner, observing that the allegations disclosed a clear prima facie case of criminal conspiracy resulting in murder. The Court held that merely being in custody at the time of the offence does not diminish involvement when conspiracy is alleged, especially when supported by motive, past animosity, and corroborating conduct. The Court further emphasized that prolonged incarceration or the likelihood of delay in trial cannot, by themselves, constitute valid grounds for bail when the offence is grave and punishable with severe consequences. The petitioner’s criminal history, coupled with the possibility of witness intimidation and repeat conduct, weighed heavily against bail.

Summary: The case arose from FIR No. 155 dated 16 July 2023, wherein the complainant Mahinder Kaur reported that four individuals entered her residence under the pretext of being sent by her son Sukhdev Singh, who was imprisoned. Shortly after entering the house and interacting briefly with the family, one of the assailants allegedly fired upon her husband, killing him instantly. The prosecution asserted that the killing was orchestrated by Gourav Sharma from inside jail as retaliation against Sukhdev Singh, who had allegedly assaulted him earlier during incarceration. The State argued that the petitioner was the principal conspirator, citing a social media post uploaded after the murder as an implied admission and an act of dominance. The State also highlighted that the petitioner had an extensive criminal history, with as many as 44 previously registered cases of serious offences. Conversely, the petitioner denied involvement, contending that his judicial custody rendered participation impossible, and argued that the allegations rested solely on conjecture without substantive evidence connecting him to the murder plot.

Decision: After evaluating the case record, arguments and applicable legal principles, the Court concluded that the accusations, combined with motive and behavioral indicators, demonstrated sufficient material establishing the petitioner’s complicity. The Court reiterated that legal precedents do not favor bail where serious offences backed by conspiracy are alleged and where the accused presents a risk of threatening witnesses or committing further crimes. Relying on landmark rulings including Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, and State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, the Court dismissed the bail petition and clarified that the observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial. All pending applications were accordingly disposed of.