Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rakesh Sharawat vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1729 of 2026)
RAKESH SHARAWAT APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. RESPONDENTS
R1 : STATE OF HARYANA
R2 : VIRENDER @MITHU
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 22.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CRM-M-12249-2025 by which, the High Court has granted
regular bail to the respondent no.2-accused in connection with FIR
No.217 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023, registered at P.S. Julana,
District Jind, Haryana, under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short the, “IPC”) and under Section 25(1)(a)
of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondent no.2 is accused of shooting
Signature Not Verified
the deceased, who is the cousin of the appellant-informant, by a
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2026.04.29
17:08:47 IST
Reason:
pistol.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
allegation against the respondent no.2 is direct and based on
sufficient evidence, both ocular as well as documentary. It was
contended that witnesses have seen the respondent no.2 shooting the
deceased and he was shot at close range from a pistol which has
been recovered. Two of the empty cartridges recovered were found to
have been shot from the said pistol. It was further submitted that
on the clothes of the respondent no.2, human blood has been found.
It was contended that in such background, the respondent no.2, who
was in custody for only about one year and ten months, being
granted bail by the High Court, was totally unjustified. It was
contended that even witnesses have stated that it was the
respondent no.2 who had shot the deceased from a pistol and there
have been disclosure statements of the respondent no.2-accused, his
father and his uncle.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State of Haryana
submitted that he was supporting the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that bail has wrongly been granted to the
respondent no.2 by the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that
firstly, the Court may take note that there has been no abuse of
the conditions of bail by the respondent no.2. It was further
submitted that out of a total number of 34 witnesses, only 18 have
been examined. It was contended that the human blood on the clothes
has not been tested for establishing that it was the blood of the
deceased.
3
7. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find
substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. On a broad circumspection of the facts and circumstances
of the case and the probabilities arising thereof, as also the
parameters which should guide the Court in grant of bail that too,
when the trial is going on, especially when in the present case,
there was sufficient material to indicate the complicity of the
respondent no.2 and most importantly, when more than half of the
witnesses have already been examined, in our considered view, grant
of bail to the respondent no.2 was not proper.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
22.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CRM-M-12249-2025 is set aside. The respondent no.2
shall surrender before the Court below, latest within ten days from
today failing which, the Court below as well as the
prosecution/local police administration shall take all measures to
ensure that the respondent no.2 is arrested and brought before the
Court.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………..………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 24, 2026
4
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1729/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-07-2025
in CRMM No.12249/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
RAKESH SHARAWAT Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
(IA No. 11933/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 11931/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 24-04-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, AOR
Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anurag Kulharia, A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gaj, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sinha Roy, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Rai, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.
Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
Ms. Bhupinder, Adv.
5
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv.
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
