CRM-M-72269- 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rohit Raghav alias Rohit Kumar Raghav State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana. Ms. Navdeep Kaur Gill, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) CRM-51984-2025 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-72269- 1. Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case 120-B and 365 of IPC (later on Section 365 was removed and Section 201, 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC were added) District Mahendergarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had Deepak caste Rajput r/o Khera was coming from his village towards Ateli. In the meanwhile, he saw one vehicle whi -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Rohit Raghav alias Rohit Kumar Raghav VERSUS Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana. Ms. Navdeep Kaur Gill, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. -.- Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 2025 Allowed as prayed for. -2025 Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.80 B and 365 of IPC (later on Section 365 was removed and Section 201, 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC were added), registered at Police Station District Mahendergarh. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2023 at about 5.30 PM, complainant had gone to fetch milk. At that time, he saw that his grand Deepak caste Rajput r/o Khera was coming from his village towards Ateli. In the meanwhile, he saw one vehicle white colour being driven by Devender came to his -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72269-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navdeep Kaur Gill, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular 80, dated 30.03.2023, under Section B and 365 of IPC (later on Section 365 was removed and Section 201, 364 and , registered at Police Station Ateli, on 28.03.2023 at about 5.30 PM, hat time, he saw that his grand-son Deepak caste Rajput r/o Khera was coming from his village towards Ateli. In the te colour being driven by Devender came to his Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular , under Section B and 365 of IPC (later on Section 365 was removed and Section 201, 364 and Ateli, on 28.03.2023 at about 5.30 PM, son Deepak caste Rajput r/o Khera was coming from his village towards Ateli. In the te colour being driven by Devender came to his TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72269- grandson Deepak and stopped his vehicle near Deepak and made him sit him in the said vehicle. It was also noticed that outside of that vehicle, Yogender (Daniya), Devender, Sandeep, son of Yogender, son of De in-law of Devender, son of Devender’s Fufa, son of Devender’s Mama, husband of Devender’s aunt and his son were present. The said incident was seen by Ashok son of Chhaju Ram also. The said aforesaid persons were seen co Ateli. Some persons were on motor Brezza. From that day, Deepak son of Ashok was missing. Sandeep son of Rajbir and Yogender (Daniya) gave old. On 29.03.2023 his younger grand to be killed. On the said complaint, the into motion. After inquiry, on 30.03.2023, dead body of Deepak was found at Village Bhabru, Jaipu surfaced during investigation on the disclosure statement of the co resultantly he was arrested 04.04.2023. learned Additional Sessions Judge, However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024. Being a approached this Court by way of filing CRM of regular bail, however, the same was dismissed 21.11.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in t -2025 (O&M) son Deepak and stopped his vehicle near Deepak and made him sit him in the said vehicle. It was also noticed that outside of that vehicle, Yogender (Daniya), Devender, Sandeep, son of Yogender, son of De law of Devender, son of Devender’s Fufa, son of Devender’s Mama, husband of Devender’s aunt and his son were present. The said incident was seen by Ashok son of Chhaju Ram also. The said aforesaid persons were seen co Ateli. Some persons were on motor-cycle and some were in the white colour Brezza. From that day, Deepak son of Ashok was missing. Sandeep son of Rajbir and Yogender (Daniya) gave beatings on his (complainant) eyes, who is 82 years 29.03.2023 his younger grandson Sunny and his son Ashok were also tried . On the said complaint, the FIR was registered. Investigation was sent into motion. After inquiry, on 30.03.2023, dead body of Deepak was found at Village Bhabru, Jaipur and accused were arrested surfaced during investigation on the disclosure statement of the co resultantly he was arrested 04.04.2023. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024. Being a approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M of regular bail, however, the same was dismissed . Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that admittedly case of -2- son Deepak and stopped his vehicle near Deepak and made him sit him in the said vehicle. It was also noticed that outside of that vehicle, Yogender (Daniya), Devender, Sandeep, son of Yogender, son of Devender, wife of Devender, brother law of Devender, son of Devender’s Fufa, son of Devender’s Mama, husband of Devender’s aunt and his son were present. The said incident was seen by Ashok son of Chhaju Ram also. The said aforesaid persons were seen coming towards cycle and some were in the white colour Brezza. From that day, Deepak son of Ashok was missing. Sandeep son of Rajbir on his (complainant) eyes, who is 82 years son Sunny and his son Ashok were also tried was registered. Investigation was sent into motion. After inquiry, on 30.03.2023, dead body of Deepak was found at arrested. The complicity of the petitioner surfaced during investigation on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and The petitioner approached the Court of Narnaul praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier M-55751-2024 praying for the grant of regular bail, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated . Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner he present case. He contends that admittedly case of son Deepak and stopped his vehicle near Deepak and made him sit him in the said vehicle. It was also noticed that outside of that vehicle, Yogender (Daniya), vender, wife of Devender, brother- law of Devender, son of Devender’s Fufa, son of Devender’s Mama, husband of Devender’s aunt and his son were present. The said incident was seen by Ashok ming towards cycle and some were in the white colour Brezza. From that day, Deepak son of Ashok was missing. Sandeep son of Rajbir on his (complainant) eyes, who is 82 years son Sunny and his son Ashok were also tried was registered. Investigation was sent into motion. After inquiry, on 30.03.2023, dead body of Deepak was found at The complicity of the petitioner accused and The petitioner approached the Court of Narnaul praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul declined the bail application filed by the ggrieved, the petitioner earlier 2024 praying for the grant vide order dated this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner he present case. He contends that admittedly case of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72269- the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is evidence in the present petitioner had been alleged to be part of the unlawful assembly wherein the deceased Deepak including the present petitioner of Deepak was traced in Rajasthan on 30.03.2023 and the FIR was got registered on 30.03.2023, itself. He conten grandfather of deceased he had seen his grandson having been kidnapped by the present petitioner and others. He, thus submits that the allegations are petitioner has been implicated in a the disclosure statement of the co by the prosecution is one more eye has been examined before the learned trial Court as PW the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. It is of the prosecution is totally based on the presumptions and assumptions. petitioner is languishing in the jail from the last more than three years. The material witnesses stands examined. To butteress his arguments, he contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as he has never been implicated in any other criminal case. of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4. Per contra, l by counsel for the petitioner. accused has a strong motive to eliminate Deepak, as Deepak had married with -2025 (O&M) he prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is evidence in the present. It is contended that in the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner had been alleged to be part of the unlawful assembly wherein the deceased Deepak was allegedly kidnapped by all the accused named in the FIR including the present petitioner on 28.03.2023. It is contended that the dead body of Deepak was traced in Rajasthan on 30.03.2023 and the FIR was got registered on 30.03.2023, itself. He contends that the complainant is none other than the grandfather of deceased – Deepak and there is no reason for keeping two days once he had seen his grandson having been kidnapped by the present petitioner and others. He, thus submits that the allegations are petitioner has been implicated in a premeditated the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no credible evidence collected by the prosecution for proving its case against the petitione is one more eye-witness produced by the prosecution, namely, Vivek Kumar who examined before the learned trial Court as PW the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. It is of the prosecution is totally based on the presumptions and assumptions. petitioner is languishing in the jail from the last more than three years. The material witnesses stands examined. To butteress his arguments, he contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as he has never been implicated in any other criminal case. He has submitted that in the overall facts of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petit accused has a strong motive to eliminate Deepak, as Deepak had married with -3- he prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct . It is contended that in the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner had been alleged to be part of the unlawful assembly wherein the was allegedly kidnapped by all the accused named in the FIR on 28.03.2023. It is contended that the dead body of Deepak was traced in Rajasthan on 30.03.2023 and the FIR was got registered ds that the complainant is none other than the Deepak and there is no reason for keeping two days once he had seen his grandson having been kidnapped by the present petitioner and others. He, thus submits that the allegations are totally after-thought and the premeditated manner. He contends that except accused, there is no credible evidence collected for proving its case against the petitioner. He submits that there witness produced by the prosecution, namely, Vivek Kumar who examined before the learned trial Court as PW-9, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. It is contended that case of the prosecution is totally based on the presumptions and assumptions. The petitioner is languishing in the jail from the last more than three years. The material witnesses stands examined. To butteress his arguments, he contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as he has never been implicated in any He has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. State counsel has opposed the submissions made He has submitted that the petitioner along with co accused has a strong motive to eliminate Deepak, as Deepak had married with direct . It is contended that in the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner had been alleged to be part of the unlawful assembly wherein the was allegedly kidnapped by all the accused named in the FIR on 28.03.2023. It is contended that the dead body of Deepak was traced in Rajasthan on 30.03.2023 and the FIR was got registered ds that the complainant is none other than the Deepak and there is no reason for keeping two days once he had seen his grandson having been kidnapped by the present petitioner and thought and the He contends that except accused, there is no credible evidence collected r. He submits that there witness produced by the prosecution, namely, Vivek Kumar who but he has not supported that case The petitioner is languishing in the jail from the last more than three years. The material witnesses stands examined. The material witnesses stands examined. To butteress his arguments, he contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as he has never been implicated in any and circumstances made ioner along with co- accused has a strong motive to eliminate Deepak, as Deepak had married with TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72269- cousin of the petitioner against the wishes of the the petitioner hatched the conspiracy with co conspiracy all kidnapped him and thereafter murdered him by strangulation. It has been established during investigation, after killing Deepak, on the road-side witnesses, 23 witness of the petitioner today in the Court, 5. Heard. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that The deceased was allegedly kidnapped on 28.03.2023, which was seen by the complainant, ho FIR was lodged on the same day the last seen witness. Besides the statement of the complainant, there was another eye-witness namely, Vivek, who w the case of the prosecution. counsel shows that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 0 days. Out of total 32 prosecution witnesses, 2 shows that the material witnesses are already examined, thus, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. The custody certificate further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent 7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial anything on the meri -2025 (O&M) cousin of the petitioner against the wishes of the the petitioner hatched the conspiracy with co conspiracy all kidnapped him and thereafter murdered him by strangulation. It has been established during investigation, after killing Deepak, side. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total witnesses have been examined. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. Heard. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is that the case of the prosecution is based The deceased was allegedly kidnapped on 28.03.2023, which was seen by the complainant, however, thereafter his dead-body was found on 30.03.2023 and the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 30.03.2023 the last seen witness. Besides the statement of the complainant, there was another witness namely, Vivek, who was examined as PW the case of the prosecution. The custody certificate filed by the learned State counsel shows that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 0 Out of total 32 prosecution witnesses, 2 shows that the material witnesses are already examined, thus, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. The custody certificate further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long -4- cousin of the petitioner against the wishes of their family. In order to take revenge the petitioner hatched the conspiracy with co-accused and in a well hatched conspiracy all kidnapped him and thereafter murdered him by strangulation. It has been established during investigation, after killing Deepak, his body was thrown instructions, has submitted that out of total 32 prosecution examined. He has produced custody certificate which is taken on record. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The deceased was allegedly kidnapped on 28.03.2023, which was seen by the body was found on 30.03.2023 and the i.e. 30.03.2023. The complainant was allegedy the last seen witness. Besides the statement of the complainant, there was another as examined as PW-9 but he has not supported The custody certificate filed by the learned State counsel shows that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 03 years and 2 Out of total 32 prosecution witnesses, 23 already stand examined, which shows that the material witnesses are already examined, thus, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. The custody certificate further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting The trial of the case will take sufficient long ir family. In order to take revenge accused and in a well hatched conspiracy all kidnapped him and thereafter murdered him by strangulation. It has his body was thrown rosecution examined. He has produced custody certificate After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is on the circumstantial evidence. The deceased was allegedly kidnapped on 28.03.2023, which was seen by the body was found on 30.03.2023 and the . The complainant was allegedy the last seen witness. Besides the statement of the complainant, there was another 9 but he has not supported The custody certificate filed by the learned State and 27 3 already stand examined, which shows that the material witnesses are already examined, thus, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. The custody certificate further The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting The trial of the case will take sufficient long TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72269- time. Keeping in view the arguments raised record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel in making out a case for 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial 9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases. May 07, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the of the cases. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- by both the sides and perusing the this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No by both the sides and perusing the for the petitioner succeeds Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document