IN THE 214 Manjeet State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Section 302 of the Rewari. 2. The Ram Charan (father “….submitting Station younger class for Kishangarh the Hospital Kishanpur room. Subhash with village room THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62786 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Bhupender Ghai and Mr. Dheeraj the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.352 dated the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police The FIR in the present case was registered (father of the deceased-Subhash), the ….submitting that he is resident of Station Mundawar and has two sons. younger son was deceased Subhash, class and was aged about 36 years the last about one year on the vehicle Kishangarh Balawas. Deceased Subhash room of Harpal Singh for the last Hospital in Bawal. Manjeet S/o Ram Kishanpur and Rekha, a lady of Bihar room. He has received the information Subhash has been killed with knife with his elder son Ranbir, brother village has reached the house of Harpal room of Harpal Singh where his son PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 62786-2025(O&M) decision: 16.02.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Dheeraj Kumar, Advocates Haryana. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 24.10.2022 registered under Police Station Bawal, District registered on the coamplaint of the same reads thus:- of Village Sunderwadi, Police ons. Eldest was Ranbir and Subhash, who had studied upto 10th and was working as a driver vehicle of MNL Company Anand Subhash was living as tenant in last one month behind Sushma Ram Niwas resident of Village Bihar were also living in that information on that day that his son on which complainant along brother Ajit and other persons of Harpal Singh. He has seen the son Subhash is lying dead. One SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 214 CRM-M-62786-2025(O&M) blow with knife in the chest of his son Subhash has been inflicted and blood is lying on the floor. No sign of any other injury is visible on the body of his son Subhash. One knife used to cut the vegetables is lying near the dead body of Subhash on the spot in the room which has also the blood stains. One shirt of white colour is also there which has also the blood stains. upon enquiring from Harpal Singh, complainant has come to know that at about 09:00/09:30 p.m. on 23.10.2022, his son was packing his bag to come to house on the occasion of Deepawali and then Manjeet S/o Ram Niwas abused his son Subhash and started beating him and inflicted the blow with the knife to cut the vegetables in the chest of his son Subhash by which much blood oozed out from the body of his son Subhash on the spot. Therefore FIR No. 352 dated 24.10.2022 under sections 302 of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that so far as the complainant-Ram Charan is concerned, he is a hearsay witness. The two persons who were cited as eye-witnesses are Harpal Singh and one Rekha. He submits that there is only one stab injury on the person of the deceased-Subhash and that the petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2022. The petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 03 years and 03 months and is not involved in any other case. He further contends that the prosecution has already examined 10 witnesses which includes Ranveer (brother of the deceased) as PW6, Harpal Singh (owner of the room) as PW-7, Ajit (paternal uncle of deceased-Subhash) as PW-8 and Suman (wife of Harpal Singh i.e. owner of the room) as PW-9 and all the said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that so far as Ram Charan is concerned, he is only a hearsay witness and he got his statement recorded on the facts as disclosed by Harpal Singh. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 214 CRM-M-62786-2025(O&M) Hence, evidentiary value of such testimony cannot be given much credence. He further contends that as per Annexure P-11, which is a report prepared under Section 175 Cr.P.C., Rekha has not been shown to be present at the place of occurrence. He further contends that it is suspect whether Rekha was an actual eye-witness of the incident or not. He contends that nonetheless since April, 2025, summons have been issued to said Rekha, however, her whereabouts are not known and she is not traceable. In such circumstances, the trial is likely to take long. 4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner caused death of deceased-Subhash by giving a stab injury and that the weapon of offence has been recovered from him. He however does not dispute the period of custody, the stage of trial as well as the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into consideration that there would be arguable issues that would arise for consideration before the Trial Court regarding evidentiary value of the complainant’s testimony, the stage of the trial where 10 witnesses are yet to be examined, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner as well as his clean antecedents along with the fact that certain material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 214 CRM-M-62786-2025(O&M) 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 16.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document