CRA-S-1721-202 IN THE H (221) SANJAY STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. N MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 14-A(2) Atrocities) Act, 06.02.2025 passed case arising out of 302, 201 and 379 at Police Station T regular bail filed b 2. Brief that the aforement submitted by co sheep/goats with t for grazing of shee to be switched off 2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant appeal has been filed by A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Sc Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST A passed by the Court of Ld. Additiona out of FIR No.408 dated 17.07.2022 d 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and ation Tosham, District Bhiwani, where filed by the appellant had been dismiss Brief facts relevant for the purpose rementioned FIR was registered on th by complainant Harish Kumar, all with the assistance of one Ankit. On sheep/goats but he did not return ba ed off. Some time thereafter, 20 shee JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRA-S-1721-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.02.2026 ... Appellant
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ate for the appellant iled by the appellant-accused under nd Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ST Act”) against the order dated ditional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in .2022 registered under Sections 346, C and Section 3(2) of SC & ST Act whereby an application for grant of ismissed. rpose of disposal of this appeal are on the basis of a written complaint alleging that he used to rear it. On 16.07.2022, Ankit had gone urn back. His phone was also found 0 sheep had come back to his house 2026

nder n of ated ni in 346, Act nt of l are laint rear gone ound ouse AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1721-202 but the remaining case under Sectio investigation proc certain suspected ultimately contact had purchased 10 into investigation. investigation. Th witness Vijay to t then suffered a dis the murder of the recovered a huma revealed that out accused Sandeep, lambs to Mani R category, hence o Investigation now commission of afo 3. It is a order is not sustain Additional Sessio incriminating evid case rests upon c suffered by him ca 2025 (O&M) 2 aining sheep/goats as well as Ankit h Section 346 of IPC was registered n proceedings were initiated. Durin ected phone numbers were detected ontacted Mani Ram. Mani Ram dis ed 10 sheep and 10 lambs from the pre gation. The co-accused Sandeep @ n. The appellant initially suffered ex ay to the effect that one Jitender @ L d a disclosure statement on 14.05.2024 of the victim. In pursuance of his human skeleton by demarcating the at out of greed the appellant had ha deep, had killed him on the fateful da ani Ram. Since the victim belon ence offence under Section 3(2) of n now stands completed. The appe of aforementioned offence. It is argued by learned counsel for th sustainable in the eyes of law as while Sessions Judge ignored the fact a g evidence to connect the appellant w pon circumstantial evidence. The d him cannot be stated to be admissible nkit had gone missing. Initially a istered. After registration of FIR, During the course of investigation etected. The investigation agency disclosed that on 16.07.2022, he the present appellant. He was joined ep @ Sandiya was also joined into red extra-judicial confession before er @ Leta had killed the victim but 5.2024 admitting his involvement in of his disclosure statement, he got ng the place of occurrence. It was had hatched a conspiracy with co- eful day and had sold his sheep and belonged to the Scheduled Caste (2) of SC & ST Act was added. appellant is now facing trial for l for the appellant that the impugned s while passing the same, the learned fact and there was no direct or llant with the subject offence. The The disclosure statement allegedly issible in evidence. A false recovery lly a FIR, ation ency 2, he ined into efore but nt in got was - and aste ded. l for gned rned t or The edly very AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1721-202 has been planted considerable time him in custody an liable to be set deserves to be rele 4. Per application of the the appeal does no 5. This C for both the parties 6. The reared by the victi to have called him opened an assault and covered the recovered at the in phone which was appellant. The a prosecution witne there is any undue Taking into consi appellant, the seve the attendant facts 2025 (O&M) 3 anted upon him. He is in custody si e time to conclude. No useful purpose ody anymore. It is, therefore, argue set aside, the appeal deserves to b be released on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel of the appellant has been rightly dismi not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The appellant out of greed of money e victim and to sell it and with the mot led him at the place of occurrence o ssault upon him by striking injuries wi the victim/his dead body with grass a t the instance of the appellant and co h was used by him, was allegedly give The allegations against the appellan witnesses have been examined. A undue delay in conducting of the trial consideration the gravity of the alleg e severity of the punishment which t facts and circumstances, this Court tody since long. The trial will take urpose would be served by detaining argued that the impugned order is s to be admitted and the appellant ounsel has argued that the bail dismissed and it is, thus, urged that ubmissions made by learned counsel money and with intent to grab sheep he motive to kill the victim is alleged ence on the fateful day wherein he ries with an axe, threw him in a ditch grass and soil etc. The skeleton was nd co-accused Sandeep. The mobile ly given by the owner thereof to the ppellant are serious in nature. 17 . As such it cannot be stated that e trial. It may be expedited further. e allegations as levelled against the hich the conviction may entail and Court is of the considered opinion take ining er is llant bail that unsel heep eged n he ditch was obile o the 7 that rther. t the l and inion AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1721-202 that no compelling Sessions Judge is m 7. It is m the purpose of dec as an expression o 8. Since any, is rendered in 16.02.2026 Amit Sharma


2025 (O&M) 4 pelling ground to interfere with the ge is made out. Accordingly, the appe It is made clear that the observations of deciding the present appeal and th sion of opinion on the merits of the ca Since the main appeal has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

order passed by Ld. Additional e appeal is dismissed. ations made hereinabove are only for and the same shall not be construed the case.
dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ional for trued n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.