CRM-M- IN 217 Suresh Kum v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 16.9.2023, Penal Code petition und 2. noticed her Police Stat pointing th Rapriya Pa No. 285 da when he re -21852-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA sh Kumar of Haryana AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate Mr. Ashwani Bhatia, AAG, Ha **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse 2023, registered against him under S l Code, at Police Station Kalayat, Dis ion under Section 483 of BNSS for gra Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- EHC Suresh Kumar, who then Station, Kalayat, set the criminal la g therein that in the late hours o a Patti Balu to receive a secret info 5 dated 15.9.2023, under Section 3 e received another information that 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-21852-2025 Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. ocate for the petitioner. G, Haryana. accused in case FIR No. 286 date nder Sections 302, 201, 34 of India t, District Kaithal, has filed the prese for grant of bail. ging from the documents on record b then was posted as Security Agent al law in motion by filing a complai rs of 16.9.2023, he was present t information with regard to case FI ion 346 IPC, Police Station Kalaya that Maafi (since deceased), daught .2026 6 dated f Indian present cord be ent in plaint ent at e FIR layat, ughter GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of Suresh K having love Chopta, Di lover Rohit love affair, and killed body of the Maafi, nam other fami complainan registered Police Stat petitioner w According investigatio guilt of th committing deceased m Ravi Kuma that he (P) their youn planning to understand, family that ‘like’, they -21852-2025 -2 esh Kumar (present petitioner), res ve affair with co-villager Rohit, s , District Hisar. The girl was pre ohit. When the family members of fair, they overpowered her and took lled her. Further, with the intentio f the girl was also cremated. Compl namely, Bala Devi, her father Sures family members had killed the yo inant, a formal case vide FIR red against him under Sections 302, Station Kalayat, District Kaithal. D ner was arrested on 16.9.2023. Case of the prosecution is b rding to them, incriminating materia tigation, complete chain of events, c of the accused. It is further the itting the horrifying murder, petiti ased made an extra judicial confessio Kumar, who is married to his elder da he (P) and his wife Bala Devi were up young daughter was emotionally ing to elope with him. They trie rstand, but she was adamant and openl ly that she would be marrying none-els , they killed her. Incidentally, the mo 2- , resident of Rapriya Patti Balu, wa hit, son of Ramphal, resident of Khe preparing to secretly elope with h rs of the girl came to know about h ok her to their house in village Ba ntion of destroying the evidence, th omplainant alleged that mother of la uresh Kumar (present petitioner) an e young girl. On the statement IR No. 286 dated 16.9.2023, wa 302, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, . During the course of investigatio n is based on circumstantial evidenc aterial collected during the course o ts, collectively pointing towards th er the case of prosecution that aft petitioner, who is the father of th fession before his son-in-law, namel daughter Manju, confessing there ere upset when they came to know th nally entangled with Rohit and wa y tried their level best to make h openly announced in front of the enti else but Rohit. Disapproving of the motorcycle of Rohit, who had com u, was Kheri th her ut her e Balu e, the of late and ent of was de, at ation, vidence. urse of ards the at after of the namely, therein ow that nd was ake her e entire of her ad come GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- to meet the of the petiti already pe cremation s of the site w and Rohit w respects wa dismissed b order dated filed. 3. who lost hi He and his submission alleged inc circumstant confided Manju) and done to d however, d earlier give request of -21852-2025 -3 eet the deceased, as per prosecution, w e petitioner. It is further the case of prosecu dy performed, the bones of the de ation site, converted into a sealed parc e site were also got clicked. Call deta ohit were also taken into possession. On culmination of investig cts was present in the Court against pr An application for grant of issed by the learned Additional Sess r dated 8.4.2025. Aggrieved of the sa Learned counsel for the petiti lost his young daughter, has been false nd his wife had no ‘motive’ to kill ission of learned counsel that there is ed incident. The entire case of th mstantial evidence. As per the case ided in his own son-in-law Ravi Kum and had elaborated upon the man to death. Aforesaid Ravi Kumar ver, did not support the prosecution c er given to the police authorities. Afte est of learned PP, he was subjected to 3- tion, was also recovered from the hous rosecution that since the cremation ha he deceased were collected from th ed parcel and sent to FSL. Photograph ll details etc. of petitioner, the decease ssion. vestigation, challan complete in a inst present petitioner and his wife. nt of bail filed by the petitioner wa l Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in terms o the same, the present petition has bee petitioner contends that the petitione n falsely implicated in the present cas o kill their daughter. It is further th here is ‘no eye witness’ account to th of the prosecution is based on th e case of prosecution, petitioner ha i Kumar (married to his elder daught manner in which the young girl wa umar was examined as PW-5, wh ution case and resiled from the versio After being declared ‘hostile’, on th cted to rigorous cross-examination, e house tion had rom the ographs eceased in all ner was erms of as been titioner, nt case. ther the t to the on the had aughter girl was who version , on the ion, but GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- nothing ma elicited the otherwise t the compla tragic incid matter to th that his stat Security A information cross-exam i.e., on 14 story, for it no one info been drawn (brother of during cros the young Rohit also deposed th 16.9.2023 a who has be in his favo examined future is qu -21852-2025 -4 ing material or fruitful to support th ed therefrom. It is further the submission wise the story of prosecution is highly omplainant, who deposed that though c incident at about 9.30 PM on 16.9 er to the police authorities. It is only w his statement was recorded at about 1. rity Agent posted in the area, it is u mation at all about the incident on 14 examination, he admitted having sta on 14.9.2023 and 15.9.2023, further , for it appears strange enough to comm ne informed him about the incident. drawn to statement made on oath by her of co-accused Bala Devi), who g cross-examination that he did not se oung girl except for some blisters. t also put in appearance as PW4 that her son Rohit had returned b 2023 alongwith motorcycle. Towards the end, learned cou has been in custody since 16.9.2023, d is favour, for out of 22 prosecution ined and, thus, the likelihood of the e is quite remote. Thus, his (P) furth 4- port the case of prosecution could ission of learned counsel that eve highly doubtful, in view of the stand o ough he received information about th n 16.9.2023, but he did not report th only when he woke up during midnig 1.30 AM. Even otherwise, being it is unbelievable that he received n on 14.9.2023. The fact that during h ing stayed in the village for two day urther creates dent in the prosecutio o common sense that during this perio ident. Attention of the Court has als ath by Sh. Rakesh, son of Prem Chan while appearing as PW1 admitte not see any injury marks on the body o ters. Further, Smt. Dimple, mother o PW4, who during cross-examinatio rned back home in the late evening o ed counsel contends that the petition 023, deserves a lenient view to be take cution witnesses, only 13 have bee of the trial being completed in the ne ) further incarceration would not serv ould be at even stand of bout the port the idnight being a ived no ring his o days, secution period, has also Chand dmitted body of other of ination ning of etitioner be taken ve been the near ot serve GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- any useful under Artic but would incarcerati made. 4. 4. State couns died due to there was perform th members confided and elabora young daug young gir relationship killed her. favour of for. 5. documents 6. has already advanced merits of 16.9.2023 -21852-2025 -5 useful purpose as the same would no Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind would also be against the principle eration is an exception”. Prayer fo Per contra, while opposing the counsel contends that the plea taken to electrocution, appears to be an no occasion for him not to rush the last rites. This was done by to shield them from legal punishm to his son-in-law Ravi Kumar (h laborated upon the manner in which daughter. It is further the submissio girl was emotionally attached ionship was not approved by the fami her. It has also been prayed that no of petitioner is made out. Dismissa Heard learned counsel for ments on record. Factual aspects of the case lea lready been noticed in para 2 of the by learned counsel for the petitio of the case, the fact that petitio 2023, investigation qua him is compl 5- not only be violative of his righ India, including right to speedy tri ciple of “Bail is a general rule an for allowing the petition has bee the request for grant of bail, learne taken by the petitioner that his daught an after thought, for had it been her to any hospital and to hurried by petitioner and his other fami unishment. Due to sheer guilt, petition (husband of elder daughter Manju hich he (P) and his wife murdered the mission of learned State counsel that ched to Rohit, a co-villager, the family members who in a fit of rag no case for taking a lenient view smissal of the petition has been sou for the parties and perused leading to the registration of the FI order. In view of the submission petitioner, but without adverting to petitioner has been in custody sinc complete, for challan has already bee rights trial and been learned aughter so, urriedly family etitioner Manju) their the their rage view in sought the FIR issions the since dy been GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- filed, as al only 13 hav in the near who is not of bail, for under Artic but would incarcerati in Dataram (Criminal) 7. to his furn Court/Duty following c -21852-2025 -6 , as also taking note of the fact that 13 have been examined till date, thus, e near future is quite remote, lenient vi is not involved in any other criminal c il, for his further incarceration would r Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind would also be against the principle eration is an exception” as held by taram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh inal) 131. Resultantly, petitioner is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not the trial. (ii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not 6- t that out of 22 prosecution witnesse , thus, possibility of completion of tri ient view is taken in favour of petition inal case, by extending him concessio ould not only be violative of his righ of India, including right to speedy tri ciple of “Bail is a general rule an d by as held by Hon’ble Supreme Cou desh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri The petitioner shall abide by th not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th l not leave the country without prio urt. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty itnesses, of trial etitioner sion is rights edy trial e and Court R.C.R. subject ed trial by the during e the prior to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. that in case at liberty t order. 9. herein are l construed a independen 21.01.2026 gbs -21852-2025 -7 (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the petitioner seeks to chang shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. Accordingly, the present petiti ase there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 7- ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b ail as granted to the petitioner by th t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No obile ge the eason, same Trial n each der of other g the de clear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document