CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 219 Vikash @ Vicky State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in case bearing FIR No. punishable under Section (added later Haryana. 2. the FIR was Amar Singh, who is the father of the petitioner that on the night of 30.04.2024, Vikash @ Vicky home under the influence of liquor and started quarrelling with his family members. When his mother petitioner allegedly assaulted her with a wooden stick on her head, face and -11981-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vikash @ Vicky V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 16.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate for Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG Hry. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.111 dated 01.05.2024 punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC (added later on) at Police Station Nathu Sari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana. As per the prosecution case, as set out in the petition in hand, was registered on the statement of complainant namely Amar Singh, who is the father of the petitioner that on the night of 30.04.2024, Vikash @ Vicky home under the influence of liquor and started quarrelling with his family members. When his mother namely Chawli Devi itioner allegedly assaulted her with a wooden stick on her head, face and 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11981-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate for Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG Hry. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the for grant of regular bail to the petitioner 01.05.2024, registered for the offences 302 and 323 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC Nathu Sari Chopta, District Sirsa, As per the prosecution case, as set out in the petition in hand, registered on the statement of complainant namely, namely Amar Singh, who is the father of the petitioner (herein). It has been alleged that on the night of 30.04.2024, Vikash @ Vicky (petitioner herein) returned home under the influence of liquor and started quarrelling with his family Chawli Devi tried to restrain him, the itioner allegedly assaulted her with a wooden stick on her head, face and 483 of the for grant of regular bail to the petitioner , registered for the offences 302 and 323 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC Nathu Sari Chopta, District Sirsa, As per the prosecution case, as set out in the petition in hand, , namely (herein). It has been alleged returned home under the influence of liquor and started quarrelling with his family him, the itioner allegedly assaulted her with a wooden stick on her head, face and AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 2 arms. When the complainant tried to intervene, he too was allegedly attacked and sustained injuries. Both the injured persons were taken to the hospital, where Chawli Devi subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was lodged and the petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the allegations levelled against him are false and fabricated. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant namely Amar Singh as well as Roshan Lal, who were cited as material witnesses by the prosecution, have not supported the case of the prosecution during trial and have been declared hostile; which has demolished the substratum of the prosecution case. According to learned counsel, both the witnesses have specifically stated before the trial Court that the petitioner was not the person who had caused injuries to the deceased and the complainant. It has been further contended that there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 02.05.2024; the challan stand presented on 18.09.2024 and the trial is progressing at a snail’s pace, as only 05 out of 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It has been further contended that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Furthermore, in view of the large number of remaining witnesses, the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by the continued incarceration of the petitioner. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has clean antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 3 with the prosecution evidence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has referred to the status report dated 13.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Raj Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, District Sirsa, relevant whereof reads as under: “SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED VIKASH @ VICKY IS AS UNDER: - 13. That petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky has been specifically named in FIR/Annexure P-1. During investigation, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky was found to be involved in the Heinous commission of crime of murder. In this regard most respectfully submitted that during investigation on 02.05.2024, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky suffered his disclosure statement admitting his involvement in commission of crime. That during the investigation on 03.05.2024, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky got demarcated the place where he had inflicted injured to his mother Chawali Devi and his father Amar Singh with his wooden beam, in accordance with his disclosure statement. That during the investigation on 03.05.2024, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky got recovered one wooden beam, which was used in commission of crime and blood stains cloth, which was worn by him at the time of occurrence, which same were taken into possession. The active role of the petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky to murder of his mother Chawali Devi has been fully established in the present case. The trial of the case is likely to be concluded in the near future. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky was arrested in the case and now he is custody. The trial of the case is likely to be concluded in the near future. 15. That the petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky has filed the present petition for regular bail. As a matter of fact, the petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky has committed a heinous crime of murder. Petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky has been specifically named in FIR/Annexure P-1. During investigation, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky has been found involved in the commission of crime. That during the investigation, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky suffered his disclosure statement admitting his involvement in commission of crime. That during the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 4 investigation on 03.05.2024, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky got demarcated the place where he had inflicted injured to his mother Chawali Devi and his father Amar Singh with his wooden beam, in accordance with his disclosure statement. That during the investigation on 03.05.2024, petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky got recovered one wooden beam, which was used in commission of crime and blood stains cloth, which was worn by him at the time of occurrence, which same were taken into possession. The active role of the petitioner/accused Vikash @ Vicky to murder of his mother Chawali Devi has been fully established in the present case. The trial of the case is likely to be concluded in the near future. In the event of release of regular to petitioner, there is every apprehension that he would try to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to win over the prosecution witnesses and may abscond to avoid and delay the trial of the case. Present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has iterated that merely because some witnesses have turned hostile during trial, the petitioner does not become entitled to the concession of regular bail as a matter of right. According to learned State counsel, the testimony of hostile witnesses is not required to be discarded in its entirety and the evidentiary value thereof can only be assessed by the Court below at the stage of final adjudication. Furthermore, several material witnesses are yet to be examined and the trial is still underway. On the basis of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. 6. Indubitably, as per the case of the prosecution, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious. As per the prosecution, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he allegedly, under the influence of liquor, has assaulted his mother Chawli Devi with a wooden stick, causing multiple injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. The AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 5 petitioner is also alleged to have caused injuries to his father Amar Singh when he tried to intervene to save the deceased. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the petitioner during the course of investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and a wooden stick allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered at his instance. The prosecution has also relied upon scientific and forensic evidence collected during investigation. The gravity of the offence, the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed and the consequences flowing therefrom are factors which weigh heavily against the petitioner. 7. It is also not disputed that the trial is still in progress and out of 18 witnesses only 15 have been examined so far. The possibility of the petitioner influencing or pressurizing the remaining witnesses cannot be ruled out especially when material witnesses have already turned hostile. Furthermore, an argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since the material prosecution witnesses, namely complainant Amar Singh as well as Roshan Lal, who appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. However, this Court is unable to accept such contention at this stage. Indubitably, the mere circumstances of prime witnesses having turned hostile does not, ipso facto, result in their testimonies being effaced from the record or being discarded in toto. Their depositions are still a part of the evidentiary material and remain subject to scrutiny in light of other evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution. It is trite law that mere hostility of a witness does not obliterate the substratum of the prosecution case, nor not does it, by itself, confer a right AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 6 of bail upon the accused, particularly in matters concerning heinous offence such as murder. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1976 AIR Supreme Court 202, relevant whereof reads as under: “8. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The prosecution could have even avoided requesting for permission for cross-examine the witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact that the Court gave permission to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness. Thus, characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” 8. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 26, has reiterated that even if a witness turns hostile, the portion of evidence which is credible and corroborated can still be acted upon. The relevant para of the said judgment reads thus: “5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” Thus, the hostility of PW-1 and PW-2 at this stage cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground for bail. The appreciation of their testimony vis-à-vis other prosecution evidence is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. At the stage of bail, this Court cannot undertake an appreciation of evidence or presume acquittal merely because certain/material witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements. The AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11981-2026 7 grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. 9. In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under: (i) The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at this stage. The Court below is directed to make earnest endeavour for the expeditious culmination of the trial. (ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 15, 2026 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document