CRM-M-6987-20 IN THE H JITENDER KUM STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. S Mr. N MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 21.04.2023 registe 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KUMAR Versus HARYANA he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate for the pet Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi egistered under Sections 302 and 2 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-6987-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 02.04.2026 onounced 06.04.2026 loaded on the 06.04.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.102 dated and 201 of IPC and Section 25 of M) oner dent ioner short ated 5 of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-6987-20 Arms Act at Polic dismissed on 25.07 2. As pe about a partially party reached ther Umed Singh who lying in a room bu when he received said room. A ca proceedings were finding of 02 hum 24.04.2023, post 26.04.2023, on r arrested. On inte had killed his wife places. In pursuan of the dead body. used in the crime. clothing worn by CCTV footages o presence of the pe 3. It is a falsely implicated 2026 (O&M) 2 t Police Station Manesar, District Gu n 25.07.2025. As per the allegations, on 21.04.2023 ially burnt dead body lying near a liqu d there and found a female torso to be h who was present there, recorded his om built in the agricultural land of h eived information, he had found that A case under Section 302 of IPC were initiated. On 23.04.2023, an i 2 human legs in some garbage lying post-mortem examination of the dead on receipt of a secret information terrogation, the petitioner suffere is wife, had cut her limbs, head and ha ursuance of his disclosure statement, body. Subsequently, he got recover crime. On 29.04.2023, the motorbike rn by the petitioner at that time had ages of the places of crime were also the petitioner. Investigation now stand It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. He was not nam rict Gurugram. His 1st petition was 4.2023, on receipt of an information r a liquor vend at Pachgaon, a police o to be lying there. The complainant ded his statement that the torso was d of his neighbor Satya Parkash and that smoke was emanating from the IPC was registered. Investigation , an intimation was received about lying at Dwarka Expressway. On e dead body was got conducted. On mation, the present petitioner was uffered disclosure statement that he and had thrown the same at different ment, he also got recovered the head ecovered one knife and iron mortal torbike used in the crime as well as had also been got recovered. The also collected which showed the stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been ot named in the FIR and has been was ation olice inant was and the tion bout On . On was he erent head ortal ll as The d the been been AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-6987-20 implicated subseq previous petition much further. He report about missi head of the victim of the deceased in was got identified arrested on 26.04 recovered the sam Police since 24.04 Agency does not considerable time him in custody any ground to seek co maintainable and h 4. Per co maintainable. His order and there is since then. It is a 47 prosecution wi in 02 of the CCTV while going on hi same and a back 2026 (O&M) 3 subsequently on totally false and ex tition was dismissed on 25.07.2025. r. He is suffering from 30% perman t missing of his wife. The allegation t victim recovered is totally false since sed in his sworn deposition has depo ntified by the Police on 25.04.2023 w 26.04.2023 and, therefore, there wa e same on 25.04.2023. He had been 24.04.2023. The CCTV footages s not show his presence and are not e time to conclude. No useful purpose dy anymore. Each day spent by him i eek concession of bail. It is, therefo e and he deserves to be released on bai Per contra, learned State counsel has e. His previous petition had been di here is no drastic or substantive chan It is argued that the trial is proceeding ion witnesses have been examined. T CCTV footages. One of the CCTV on his motorbike while tying a big t pack on his motorbike. He also s nd extraneous considerations. His 2025. The trial has not progressed ermanent disability. He had lodged ation that it was he who had got the since PW 20 Ankit Jangid, brother s deposed that the head of her sister 023 whereas the petitioner had been ere was no question of his getting been kept in illegal custody by the s collected by the Investigating re not feasible. The trial will take urpose would be served by detaining him in custody has furnished a new herefore, argued that the petition is on bail. el has argued that the petition is not een dismissed by passing a detailed e change in the circumstances ever eeding at a proper pace as 24 out of ed. The petitioner was clearly seen CTV footage showed the petitioner a big trolley bag on the back of the also seen coming back from the site His ssed dged t the other sister been tting y the ating take ining new on is s not d ever ut of seen ioner f the e site AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-6987-20 of the crime after nature. The trial recovered at the in the dead body was deceased had mat the wife of the pe deserve to be allow 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The p her limbs and hea places. The hea petitioner. The C The allegations ag proper pace as 24 be stated that it is proposition of law trial is likely to ta are not sufficient alleged is serious. in Parmod Kuma Krishna Yadav V through CBI Vs. A 2026 (O&M) 4 after some time. The allegations ag e trial is proceeding at a good pace. t the instance of the petitioner. The pe dy was of his wife but the DNA of bl d matched thereby confirming that th the petitioner. It is, therefore, stres e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have kille nd head into different parts and ha e head of the victim was recovered The CCTV footages prima facie show ons against him are serious in nature as 24 out of 47 prosecution witnesses at it is being unnecessarily delayed o of law is that mere prolonged period y to take time by itself or coupled wi icient grounds for enlarging an accus rious. Reference in this context can be umar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) A av Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2 Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) R ons against him are quite serious in pace. The head of the victim was The petitioner previously denied that of blood profiling of mother of the that the dead body of none-else but , stressed that the petition does not ubmissions made by learned counsel e killed his wife on 21.04.2023, cut d had thrown the same at different vered at the instance of the present show his complicity in the crime. nature. The trial is proceeding at a nesses stand examined and it cannot yed or prolonged. The well settled eriod of custody or the fact that the led with the period of incarceration, accused on bail, when the offence can be had to the observations made 63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna , (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It is us in was that f the e but s not unsel , cut erent sent rime. at a nnot ttled t the , ence ade na ate It is AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-6987-20 also well-settled p be granted or deni there cannot be an for grant of bail punishment if the support of accusa tampering with e weighed. Frivolit the element of ge bail. As such, the ground of period allegations, the qu attendant facts and comment on the m petition does not d 7. Since any, is rendered in 06.04.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 5 ttled proposition of law that grant of r denied based on specific facts and c t be any exhaustive parameters set out f bail. The factors such as nature if the accusations entail a convictio accusations are to be seen. That apar ith evidence or threatening the ma rivolity of prosecution should always of genuineness that has to be consid ch, the petitioner is not entitled to be eriod spent by him in custody. Keep the quantum of sentence for which the cts and circumstances of the case but the merits thereof, this Court is of th s not deserve to be allowed. Accordin Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No nt of bail is a discretionary relief to s and circumstance of each case and et out for considering the application nature of accusations, severity of nviction and nature of evidence in t apart, reasonable apprehension of he material witnesses is also to be always be considered, and it is only considered in the matter of grant of d to be released on bail only on the Keeping in view the gravity of the ich the conviction may entail and the se but without meaning to make any of the considered opinion that the cordingly, the same is dismissed. en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ef to and ation y of e in n of o be only nt of n the f the d the ny t the n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.