CRM-M-43706- IN THE H RAJENDER 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. Mr. R Mr. N Mr. K Mr. V MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 127 -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH 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 . Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate w Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the pet Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advoca Mr. Kunal Jindia, Advocate with Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for the ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.24 ns 127(6), 103(1), 238, 351(2) and 3(5 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-43706-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 18.02.2026 onounced 19.02.2026 loaded on the 19.02.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
cate with he petitioner dvocate General, Haryana or the complainant by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 242 dated 11.12.2024 registered and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, M) oner
dent ction grant tered hita, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-43706- 2023 (for short “ Police Station Has 2. As pe running a lab at H the motorbike of h the matter to the P under Section 127 initiated. On 13.1 from a canal/drain Kalan, Uttar Prade victim. The com 14.12.2024 allegin Gudiya @ Guddi, know that the vict in Vrindavan and been murdered by Laxman and anoth canal. Offences un 3. As p Laxman were arr statement admittin the victim had be apartment wherein -2025 (O&M) 2 “BNS”) (erstwhile Sections 340, n Hassanpur, District Palwal. As per the allegations, the victim Lax b at Hassanpur. On the noon of 04.12 ke of his assistant Manoj and did not r o the Police on 11.12.2024 about his on 127(6) of BNS was registered. In n 13.12.2024, the dead body of the v l/drain of Village Nangla Saroli fallin r Pradesh and the same was identified e complainant-Daya got her supplem alleging that the victim was having uddi, who is wife of the present petiti e victim was called by Gudiya @ Gud n and had gone there. She had come red by accused Gudiya @ Guddi in another accomplice Rajender and the nces under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of As per the further allegations, th arrested on 15.12.2024. The p mitting his involvement in the murde had been brought by co-accused Gu herein the petitioner and Gudiya @ 340, 302, 201, 506 and 34 IPC) at im Laxman son of Medh Singh, was f 04.12.2024, he had left his shop on d not return. His wife Daya reported having gone missing and a case ed. Investigation proceedings were f the victim-Laxman was recovered i falling with the jurisdiction of Kosi ntified by the family members of the pplementary statement recorded on aving illicit relations with accused t petitioner and that she had come to @ Guddi on 04.12.2024 at her house come to know that her husband had di in connivance with her husband nd then his dead body was thrown in 3(5) of BNS were added. ns, the petitioner and co-accused The petitioner suffered disclosure murder of the victim by stating that ed Gudiya @ Guddi to his rented iya @ Guddi had strangulated him. C) at was p on orted case were ered Kosi f the d on used e to ouse had band n in used sure that nted him. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-43706- Thereafter to show the victim to city after joining the L the dead body of t the Alwara Canal used for strangula was arrested subse 4. It is a falsely implicated victim. The ca circumstance to co quite improbable matter to the Poli disclosure stateme considered to be a conclude. His fur therefore, argued t 5. Status counsel assisted b allegations agains the subject offenc the record. It is, allowed. -2025 (O&M) 3 o show it a case of suicide, both of the o city hospital, Mathura in his Wagon the Laxman, who is husband of Gud dy of the victim to Alwara Bridge and Canal alongwith the motorbike. He angulating the victim as well as his ca subsequently. Investigation now stan It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. There is no eye he case rests upon circumstantial connect him with the crime. The bable and unnatural. There is inor e Police which has not been explain tatement allegedly suffered by the co o be admissible in evidence. The trial is further incarceration would not se gued that he deserves to be released on Status report and custody certificate h isted by learned counsel for the com against the petitioner are quite serious offences stands established from the c It is, therefore, stressed that the pe of them had taken the dead body of Wagon R UP-85-CK-3403 and then of Gudiya @ Guddi, they had taken ge and had thrown the dead body in e. He also got recovered the saree his car. Accused Gudiya @ Guddi w stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been o eye-witness to the murder of the tantial evidence and there is no . The version as given in the FIR is s inordinate delay in reporting the xplained by the complainant. The he co-accused and himself cannot be e trial will take considerable time to not serve any useful purpose. It is, sed on bail. icate have been filed. Learned State e complainant has argued that the serious in nature. His complicity in the circumstances emanating from the petition does not deserve to be dy of then aken dy in saree uddi been f the s no IR is the The ot be e to It is, State t the ty in from o be AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-43706- 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The Guddiya @ Guddi called him to Vri rented apartment o the petitioner and killing him. Bot hospital to make Laxman, who is h prosecution is tha husband of the co body was thrown motorbike of the make out a case of offences. It is wel relief to be grante case and there can application for gra of punishment if support of accus tampering with e weighed. Frivolit this case is accuse -2025 (O&M) 4 This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner by hatching a con Guddi with whom the victim was havi to Vrindavan. As per the allegations ment of the petitioner by co-accused G er and co-accused Guddiya @ Guddi . Both of them had taken the dead make it a case for suicide and ha ho is husband of Guddiya @ Guddi is that the dead body of the victim w the co-accused Guddiya @ Guddi and hrown in a canal for causing disappe f the victim was also thrown there. of active participation of the petiti is well-settled proposition of law that granted or denied based on specific f ere cannot be any exhaustive paramet for grant of bail. The factors such as ent if the accusations entail a convict accusations are to be seen. That apar ith evidence or threatening the ma rivolity of prosecution should also be accused of a heinous crime punishab ubmissions made by learned counsel a conspiracy with the co-accused as having an affair, is alleged to have ations, the victim was taken to the cused Guddiya @ Guddi where both Guddi had strangulated him thereby dead body of the victim to some nd had also called the co-accused uddi to the hospital. The case of tim was then taken to the shop of di and then by all of them, the dead isappearance of offence. Even the there. The allegations prima facie e petitioner in commission of subject that grant of bail is a discretionary cific facts and circumstance of each rameters set out for considering the ch as nature of accusations, severity onviction and nature of evidence in t apart, reasonable apprehension of he material witnesses is also to be be considered. The petitioner in nishable with capital punishment or unsel used have o the both reby some used se of p of dead n the acie bject nary each g the erity ce in n of o be er in nt or AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-43706- life imprisonment. of accusation of m IPC). Taking into considered opinion bail to the petition 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 19.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 5 nment. The length of incarceration ca n of murder under Section 103(1) of B ng into consideration the above discus opinion that no compelling ground is etitioner. Accordingly, the petition is d It is, however, clarified that the obse an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

tion cannot over-shadow the gravity 1) of BNS (erstwhile Section 302 of discussed facts, this Court is of the nd is made out to extend benefit of ion is dismissed. e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
avity 02 of f the fit of l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.