CRM-M-71614- 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Himanshu Tyagi State of Haryana and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section for grant of anticipatory 04.07.2025, registered under Section Kundli, District 2. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Ravi Bhatia, brother is stated that on 29.06.2025, information was received through Dial 112 regarding a dead body lyin the spot, called the FSL team and shifted the body to GH Sonipat Mortuary. Owing to the unavailability of a forensic expert, the body was referred to BPS Khanpur Kalan, where post of doctors. -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Himanshu Tyagi Versus Haryana and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. , registered under Sections 103, 3(5 , District Sonepat. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Ravi Bhatia, brother-in-law of the deceased Kavaljeet Singh Sethi. It is stated that on 29.06.2025, information was received through Dial 112 regarding a dead body lying at Flat No. D1/604, TDI Kingsbury, Kundli. The police reached the spot, called the FSL team and shifted the body to GH Sonipat Mortuary. Owing to the unavailability of a forensic expert, the body was referred to BPS Khanpur Kalan, where post-mortem examination was conducted on 01.07.2025 by a board -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71614-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S Act, 2023 bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.507 dated , 3(5) of the BNS, at Police Station The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint law of the deceased Kavaljeet Singh Sethi. It is stated that on 29.06.2025, information was received through Dial 112 regarding g at Flat No. D1/604, TDI Kingsbury, Kundli. The police reached the spot, called the FSL team and shifted the body to GH Sonipat Mortuary. Owing to the unavailability of a forensic expert, the body was referred to BPS Khanpur nation was conducted on 01.07.2025 by a board Act, 2023 dated of the BNS, at Police Station The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a written complaint law of the deceased Kavaljeet Singh Sethi. It is stated that on 29.06.2025, information was received through Dial 112 regarding g at Flat No. D1/604, TDI Kingsbury, Kundli. The police reached the spot, called the FSL team and shifted the body to GH Sonipat Mortuary. Owing to the unavailability of a forensic expert, the body was referred to BPS Khanpur nation was conducted on 01.07.2025 by a board TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71614- 3. Initially, on 30.06.2025, the mother of the deceased had submitted a written statement attributing the death to a heart attack, which was recorded in Daily Diary Report No.31. However, on 04.07. another application expressing his belief that the deceased had been murdered by his friends, including the present petitioner. Upon consideration of the post report revealing multiple injuries, including rib fracture abrasions, subcutaneous ecchymosis and diffuse swelling, a prima facie case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS was made out and the FIR was registered. 4. During investigation, site inspection was conducted, CCTV DVR was seized on 05.07.2025 and witness statements were recorded. As per the status report, sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner, whereas no sufficient material was found against some other named persons. A charge has been filed under Sectio 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered after an initial report of natural death and that the subsequent version alleging homicide is based merely upon the It is argued that this inconsistency in the prosecution story casts doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. registration of the FIR, fixed place of residence condition imposed by this Court, other accused persons against whom sufficient evidence exists, the the necessity of custodial 6. Learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record. He, while opposing the petition, submits that serious allegations have been -2025 (O&M) Initially, on 30.06.2025, the mother of the deceased had submitted a written statement attributing the death to a heart attack, which was recorded in Daily Diary Report No.31. However, on 04.07. another application expressing his belief that the deceased had been murdered by his friends, including the present petitioner. Upon consideration of the post report revealing multiple injuries, including rib fracture abrasions, subcutaneous ecchymosis and diffuse swelling, a prima facie case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS was made out and the FIR was registered. During investigation, site inspection was conducted, CCTV DVR was n 05.07.2025 and witness statements were recorded. As per the status report, sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner, whereas no sufficient material was found against some other named persons. A charge has been filed under Section 193(3)(1) BNSS against the accused found involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered after an initial report of natural death and that the subsequent version alleging homicide is based merely upon the complainant’s subjective satisfaction. It is argued that this inconsistency in the prosecution story casts doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. It is further submitted that there is d registration of the FIR, no recovery has been effected fr fixed place of residence, he is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court, and that the investigation has already identified other accused persons against whom sufficient evidence exists, the the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on while opposing the petition, submits that serious allegations have been -2- Initially, on 30.06.2025, the mother of the deceased had submitted a written statement attributing the death to a heart attack, which was recorded in Daily Diary Report No.31. However, on 04.07.2025, the complainant submitted another application expressing his belief that the deceased had been murdered by his friends, including the present petitioner. Upon consideration of the post-mortem report revealing multiple injuries, including rib fractures, diaphragmatic rupture, abrasions, subcutaneous ecchymosis and diffuse swelling, a prima facie case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS was made out and the FIR was registered. During investigation, site inspection was conducted, CCTV DVR was n 05.07.2025 and witness statements were recorded. As per the status report, sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner, whereas no sufficient material was found against some other named persons. A charge-sheet n 193(3)(1) BNSS against the accused found involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered after an initial report of natural death and that the subsequent version complainant’s subjective satisfaction. It is argued that this inconsistency in the prosecution story casts doubt on the It is further submitted that there is delay in en effected from the petitioner, he has a he is willing to join investigation and abide by any and that the investigation has already identified other accused persons against whom sufficient evidence exists, thereby reducing interrogation of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on while opposing the petition, submits that serious allegations have been Initially, on 30.06.2025, the mother of the deceased had submitted a written statement attributing the death to a heart attack, which was recorded in 2025, the complainant submitted another application expressing his belief that the deceased had been murdered by mortem s, diaphragmatic rupture, abrasions, subcutaneous ecchymosis and diffuse swelling, a prima facie case under During investigation, site inspection was conducted, CCTV DVR was n 05.07.2025 and witness statements were recorded. As per the status report, sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner, whereas no sheet n 193(3)(1) BNSS against the accused found involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered after an initial report of natural death and that the subsequent version complainant’s subjective satisfaction. It is argued that this inconsistency in the prosecution story casts doubt on the elay in he has a he is willing to join investigation and abide by any and that the investigation has already identified reby reducing Learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on while opposing the petition, submits that serious allegations have been TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71614- levelled against the peti is further submitted that CCTV footage places the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The post suggesting a violent assault. Considering contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The post injuries, including fractures of ribs, diaphragmatic rupture and internal trauma. The nature and extent of injuries cannot, at this stage, be reconciled with the initial version of natural death. The subsequent complaint attributing homicid appears to have been made after the post 9. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. As per the status report, CCTV footage allegedly places him at the scene of occurrence. The offence alleged is grave in at a crucial stage and the role of the petitioner is yet to be fully unearthed. 10. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, the medical evidence indicating violent injuries, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petit 11. The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, including delay in registration of FIR and absence of recovery, do not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the material indicating his involvement. -2025 (O&M) levelled against the petitioner and that he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is further submitted that CCTV footage places the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The post-mortem report reveals grievous and multiple injuries, suggesting a violent assault. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence, it is contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The post-mortem report prima facie discloses multi injuries, including fractures of ribs, diaphragmatic rupture and internal trauma. The nature and extent of injuries cannot, at this stage, be reconciled with the initial version of natural death. The subsequent complaint attributing homicid appears to have been made after the post-mortem findings came to light. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. As per the status report, CCTV footage allegedly places him at the scene of occurrence. The offence alleged is grave in nature and punishable with severe sentence. The investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of the petitioner is yet to be fully unearthed. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence in detail. However, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, the medical evidence indicating violent injuries, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, including delay in registration of FIR and absence of recovery, do not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the material indicating his involvement. -3- tioner and that he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is further submitted that CCTV footage places the petitioner at the place of mortem report reveals grievous and multiple injuries, the gravity and nature of the offence, it is contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. mortem report prima facie discloses multiple ante-mortem injuries, including fractures of ribs, diaphragmatic rupture and internal trauma. The nature and extent of injuries cannot, at this stage, be reconciled with the initial version of natural death. The subsequent complaint attributing homicidal death mortem findings came to light. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. As per the status report, CCTV footage allegedly places him at the scene of occurrence. The offence nature and punishable with severe sentence. The investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of the petitioner is yet to be fully unearthed. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not evaluate the evidence in detail. However, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, the medical evidence indicating violent injuries, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the ioner is necessary. The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, including delay in registration of FIR and absence of recovery, do not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the material indicating his involvement. tioner and that he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is further submitted that CCTV footage places the petitioner at the place of mortem report reveals grievous and multiple injuries, the gravity and nature of the offence, it is contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. mortem injuries, including fractures of ribs, diaphragmatic rupture and internal trauma. The nature and extent of injuries cannot, at this stage, be reconciled with the initial al death The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. As per the status report, CCTV footage allegedly places him at the scene of occurrence. The offence nature and punishable with severe sentence. The investigation is At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not evaluate the evidence in detail. However, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, the medical evidence indicating violent injuries, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, including delay in registration of FIR and absence of recovery, do not outweigh the gravity TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71614- 12. In view of the to Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 13. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an of opinion on the merits of the case. 14. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 19, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an of opinion on the merits of the case. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- tality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No tality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. expression TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document