CRM-M-53022- 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Aman State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. H.S.Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 218 dated 21.05.2022, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC (Sections 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act adde 2. The present case was registered on the complaint of Pushpa wife of Bhagwan Dass, who reported that on 08.05.2022, her husband Bhagwan Dass was walking in the street after taking meal. At that time, Aman along with Ravi and Sanjay came there and started fig the shoulder of her husband. Thereafter, she along with family members got him admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Police officials of Police Station IMT, Rohtak reached the hospital for recording his statement but Bh unfit for making statement. On 19.05.2022, he was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak. On 20.05.2022, the police officials again came to the house of the complainant for recording the statement but she requested that the statement be -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU . H.S.Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 218 dated 21.05.2022, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC (Sections 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act added later on) at Police Station IMT, Rohtak, Haryana. The present case was registered on the complaint of Pushpa wife of Bhagwan Dass, who reported that on 08.05.2022, her husband Bhagwan Dass was walking in the street after taking meal. At that time, Aman along with Ravi and Sanjay came there and started fighting with her husband and gave a knife blow on the shoulder of her husband. Thereafter, she along with family members got him admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Police officials of Police Station IMT, Rohtak reached the hospital for recording his statement but Bh unfit for making statement. On 19.05.2022, he was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak. On 20.05.2022, the police officials again came to the house of the complainant for recording the statement but she requested that the statement be -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53022-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU . H.S.Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 218 dated 21.05.2022, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC (Sections 302 IPC d later on) at Police Station IMT, Rohtak, Haryana. The present case was registered on the complaint of Pushpa wife of Bhagwan Dass, who reported that on 08.05.2022, her husband Bhagwan Dass was walking in the street after taking meal. At that time, Aman along with Ravi and hting with her husband and gave a knife blow on the shoulder of her husband. Thereafter, she along with family members got him admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Police officials of Police Station IMT, Rohtak reached the hospital for recording his statement but Bhagwan Dass was declared unfit for making statement. On 19.05.2022, he was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak. On 20.05.2022, the police officials again came to the house of the complainant for recording the statement but she requested that the statement be first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 218 dated 21.05.2022, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC (Sections 302 IPC The present case was registered on the complaint of Pushpa wife of Bhagwan Dass, who reported that on 08.05.2022, her husband Bhagwan Dass was walking in the street after taking meal. At that time, Aman along with Ravi and hting with her husband and gave a knife blow on the shoulder of her husband. Thereafter, she along with family members got him admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Police officials of Police Station IMT, Rohtak agwan Dass was declared unfit for making statement. On 19.05.2022, he was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak. On 20.05.2022, the police officials again came to the house of the complainant for recording the statement but she requested that the statement be TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53022- recorded on the next day. However, on 21.05.2022, due to deterioration of his health, Bhagwan Dass was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter the complainant got recorded the present complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the present FIR w Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. However, on 28.05.2022, Bhagwan Dass expired during treatment and consequently Section 302 IPC 3. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. On 29.05.2022, accused Ravi and the present petitioner Aman were arrested. During investigation, disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and in pursuance thereof, accused the offence. The accused persons also demarcated the place of occurrence and a scaled site plan was prepared. After completion of the investigation and other codal formalities, the challan wa 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the complainant was neither an eye witness nor present at the spot. It is further submitted that delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 whereas the FIR was registered on 21.05.2022. Learned counsel submits that the injured remained conscious during his treatment and even at time of his discharge from the hospital, however, he never made any statement against the petitioner, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is further contended that even out of the three persons named in the complaint, one co accused namely Sanjay has already been exonerated during investigation. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of knife from the petitioner is doubtful as no blood group could be detected on the said -2026 (O&M) rded on the next day. However, on 21.05.2022, due to deterioration of his health, Bhagwan Dass was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter the complainant got recorded the present complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the present FIR was registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. However, on 28.05.2022, Bhagwan Dass expired during treatment and consequently Section 302 IPC was added. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. On 29.05.2022, accused Ravi and the present petitioner Aman were arrested. During investigation, disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and in pursuance thereof, accused Aman got recovered the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The accused persons also demarcated the place of occurrence and a scaled site plan was prepared. After completion of the investigation and other codal formalities, the challan was presented before the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the complainant was neither an eye witness nor present at the spot. It is further submitted that delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 whereas the FIR was registered on 21.05.2022. Learned counsel submits that the injured remained conscious during his treatment and even at time of his discharge from the hospital, however, he never made any statement against the petitioner, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is further contended that even out of the three persons named in the complaint, one co y Sanjay has already been exonerated during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of knife from the petitioner is doubtful as no blood group could be detected on the said -2- rded on the next day. However, on 21.05.2022, due to deterioration of his health, Bhagwan Dass was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter the complainant got recorded the present complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid as registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. However, on 28.05.2022, Bhagwan Dass expired during was added. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. On 29.05.2022, accused Ravi and the present petitioner Aman were arrested. During investigation, disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and in pursuance Aman got recovered the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The accused persons also demarcated the place of occurrence and a scaled site plan was prepared. After completion of the investigation and other codal s presented before the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the complainant was neither an eye witness nor present at the spot. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 whereas the FIR was registered on 21.05.2022. Learned counsel submits that the injured remained conscious during his treatment and even at time of his discharge from the hospital, however, he never made any statement against the petitioner, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is further contended that even out of the three persons named in the complaint, one co y Sanjay has already been exonerated during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of knife from the petitioner is doubtful as no blood group could be detected on the said rded on the next day. However, on 21.05.2022, due to deterioration of his health, Bhagwan Dass was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and thereafter the complainant got recorded the present complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid as registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. However, on 28.05.2022, Bhagwan Dass expired during The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. On 29.05.2022, accused Ravi and the present petitioner Aman were arrested. During investigation, disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and in pursuance Aman got recovered the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The accused persons also demarcated the place of occurrence and a scaled site plan was prepared. After completion of the investigation and other codal Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the complainant was neither an eye there is an unexplained delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 whereas the FIR was registered on 21.05.2022. Learned counsel the time of his discharge from the hospital, however, he never made any statement against the petitioner, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is further contended that even out of the three persons named in the complaint, one co- Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of knife from the petitioner is doubtful as no blood group could be detected on the said TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53022- knife as per the report of the Forensic Scienc per the medical record and postmortem report, the deceased had sustained only two injuries and the medical opinion indicates that the injuries were not dangerous to life. It is further contended that the death occurr result of septicemia, which developed later during treatment. 6. It is further argued that during trial, the material witnesses including the complainant Pushpa and other witnesses namely Bablu and Aasaram have already been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as several witnesses are yet to b accused Ravi has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involv already on bail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned State counsel has opposed the ground that serious allegations hav caused the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting a knife blow and the said knife has been recovered on the disclosure statement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner Learned State counsel submits that the co was limited to giving fist blows, whereas the petitioner had inflicted the knife blow which subsequently proved fatal. It is furthe not lodged earlier and that the statement of the deceased was not recorded when he remained alive are matters of evidence which shall be appreciated at the time of -2026 (O&M) knife as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is also argued that as per the medical record and postmortem report, the deceased had sustained only two injuries and the medical opinion indicates that the injuries were not dangerous to life. It is further contended that the death occurr result of septicemia, which developed later during treatment. It is further argued that during trial, the material witnesses including the complainant Pushpa and other witnesses namely Bablu and Aasaram have een examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as several witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned counsel further submits that the co accused Ravi has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case except one case in which he is already on bail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the Learned State counsel has opposed the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as he had caused the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting a knife blow and the said knife has been recovered on the disclosure statement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. Learned State counsel submits that the co-accused Ravi was granted bail as his role was limited to giving fist blows, whereas the petitioner had inflicted the knife blow which subsequently proved fatal. It is further argued that the fact that the FIR was not lodged earlier and that the statement of the deceased was not recorded when he remained alive are matters of evidence which shall be appreciated at the time of -3- e Laboratory. It is also argued that as per the medical record and postmortem report, the deceased had sustained only two injuries and the medical opinion indicates that the injuries were not dangerous to life. It is further contended that the death occurred due to multi-organ failure as a result of septicemia, which developed later during treatment. It is further argued that during trial, the material witnesses including the complainant Pushpa and other witnesses namely Bablu and Aasaram have een examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as several e examined. Learned counsel further submits that the co accused Ravi has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. It is also submitted ed in any other case except one case in which he is already on bail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition mainly on the e been levelled against the petitioner as he had caused the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting a knife blow and the said knife has been recovered on the disclosure statement of the petitioner. It is has been specifically named in the FIR. accused Ravi was granted bail as his role was limited to giving fist blows, whereas the petitioner had inflicted the knife blow r argued that the fact that the FIR was not lodged earlier and that the statement of the deceased was not recorded when he remained alive are matters of evidence which shall be appreciated at the time of e Laboratory. It is also argued that as per the medical record and postmortem report, the deceased had sustained only two injuries and the medical opinion indicates that the injuries were not dangerous to organ failure as a It is further argued that during trial, the material witnesses including the complainant Pushpa and other witnesses namely Bablu and Aasaram have een examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as several e examined. Learned counsel further submits that the co- accused Ravi has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. It is also submitted ed in any other case except one case in which he is already on bail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the mainly on the e been levelled against the petitioner as he had caused the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting a knife blow and the said knife has been recovered on the disclosure statement of the petitioner. It is has been specifically named in the FIR. accused Ravi was granted bail as his role was limited to giving fist blows, whereas the petitioner had inflicted the knife blow r argued that the fact that the FIR was not lodged earlier and that the statement of the deceased was not recorded when he remained alive are matters of evidence which shall be appreciated at the time of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53022- trial. Learned State counsel has further contended t witnesses have turned hostile would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. It is submitted that PW complainant may not have supported the prosecution case, however, P the brother of the deceased, has not been declared hostile and he has identified the dead body of the deceased and during cross does not know who caused injuries to his brother. It is thus argued that this material is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 when the deceased Bhagwan Dass sustained injuries and was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. The statement but he was declared unfit to make a statement. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.2022 and though the police again attempted to record his statement, the same was not recorded. deteriorated and he was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 21.05.2022 and the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.2022 and Section 302 IPC w the case. The medical record shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries and as per the final opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death was multi organ failure due to septicemia as a complication of the ante There is also a delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is also not disputed that during the course of trial, the material witnesses namely PW Pushpa and PW case and have not -2026 (O&M) trial. Learned State counsel has further contended t witnesses have turned hostile would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. It is submitted that PW-1 complainant Pushpa and PW complainant may not have supported the prosecution case, however, P the brother of the deceased, has not been declared hostile and he has identified the dead body of the deceased and during cross-examination has only stated that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. It is thus argued that this terial is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 when the deceased Bhagwan Dass sustained injuries and was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. The police had reached the hospital for recording his statement but he was declared unfit to make a statement. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.2022 and though the police again attempted to record his statement, the same was not recorded. deteriorated and he was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 21.05.2022 and the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.2022 and Section 302 IPC w the case. The medical record shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries and as per the final opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death was multi organ failure due to septicemia as a complication of the ante ere is also a delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is also not disputed that during the course of trial, the material witnesses namely PW Pushpa and PW-2 father of the complainant have not supported the prosecution case and have not identified the petitioner or any other accused in Court. PW -4- trial. Learned State counsel has further contended that merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of 1 complainant Pushpa and PW-2 father of the complainant may not have supported the prosecution case, however, PW-3, who is the brother of the deceased, has not been declared hostile and he has identified the examination has only stated that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. It is thus argued that this terial is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner and the petitioner is not I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 when the deceased Bhagwan Dass sustained injuries and was police had reached the hospital for recording his statement but he was declared unfit to make a statement. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.2022 and though the police again attempted to record his statement, the same was not recorded. Thereafter, his condition deteriorated and he was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 21.05.2022 and the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.2022 and Section 302 IPC was added in the case. The medical record shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries and as per the final opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death was multi organ failure due to septicemia as a complication of the ante-mortem injuries. ere is also a delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is also not disputed that during the course of trial, the material witnesses namely PW-1 complainant 2 father of the complainant have not supported the prosecution identified the petitioner or any other accused in Court. PW hat merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of 2 father of the 3, who is the brother of the deceased, has not been declared hostile and he has identified the examination has only stated that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. It is thus argued that this terial is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner and the petitioner is not I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place on 08.05.2022 when the deceased Bhagwan Dass sustained injuries and was police had reached the hospital for recording his statement but he was declared unfit to make a statement. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.2022 and though the police again attempted Thereafter, his condition deteriorated and he was again admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 21.05.2022 and the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. Subsequently, the as added in the case. The medical record shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries and as per the final opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death was multi- mortem injuries. ere is also a delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is also not disputed 1 complainant 2 father of the complainant have not supported the prosecution identified the petitioner or any other accused in Court. PW-3, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53022- who is the brother of the deceased, has also stated during his cross that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. Thus, no incriminating evidence has come on record aga and 9 months since the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022. 9. It is further a matter of record that one of the co Sanjay has already been exonerated during investiga Ravi has been released on bail by the trial Court. Though recovery of a knife has been shown to have been effected from the petitioner, however, as per the FSL report no blood stains were detected on the said weapon and the ev of such recovery shall be examined during trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate 11. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. 12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 05, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) who is the brother of the deceased, has also stated during his cross that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. Thus, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the petitioner despite lapse of about 3 years and 9 months since the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022. It is further a matter of record that one of the co Sanjay has already been exonerated during investiga Ravi has been released on bail by the trial Court. Though recovery of a knife has been shown to have been effected from the petitioner, however, as per the FSL report no blood stains were detected on the said weapon and the ev of such recovery shall be examined during trial. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- who is the brother of the deceased, has also stated during his cross-examination that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. Thus, no incriminating inst the petitioner despite lapse of about 3 years and 9 months since the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022. It is further a matter of record that one of the co-accused namely Sanjay has already been exonerated during investigation and the other co-accused Ravi has been released on bail by the trial Court. Though recovery of a knife has been shown to have been effected from the petitioner, however, as per the FSL report no blood stains were detected on the said weapon and the evidentiary value of such recovery shall be examined during trial. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No examination that he does not know who caused injuries to his brother. Thus, no incriminating inst the petitioner despite lapse of about 3 years and 9 months since the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2022. accused namely accused Ravi has been released on bail by the trial Court. Though recovery of a knife has been shown to have been effected from the petitioner, however, as per the FSL identiary value In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document