CRM-M-51560- IN THE H ANUJ 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. Ms. P Ms. **** MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Panipat. His fir withdrawn on 17.0 -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date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 Sahil Choudhary, Advocate and Ms. Palvi Sharma, Advocate for the p Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Section 302 of IPC at Police S first petition bearing CRM-M- n 17.07.2024. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-51560-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 06.05.2026 onounced 08.05.2026 loaded on the 08.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA and r the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.935 dated 21.10.2022 lice Station Chandanibagh, District -58314-2023 was dismissed as oner nder SS”) 2022 strict d as AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- 2. The a complaint submitt evening of 11.10. was paternal uncle was living in the a had left. Veerpal in quarrels with h Veerpal at about 0 had called to Veer room of Veerpal inquiries about th vacated the room switched off on 13 the landlady of V the room of Veerp door, dead body o did not suspect an to not to take any had checked the C and the present pe on the fateful nigh hand in the murde -2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Kiranpa 11.10.2022, he had gone to the tenan l uncle of his wife, to meet him. In hi n the adjoining room, had also come th erpal disclosed to the complainant tha with him on trivial matters. The com bout 08.00 PM. On the next day i.e. o Veerpal but his phone was found to b eerpal which was found to be locke out the petitioner, it was informed room in the same morning. The phon f on 13.10.2022 also. On the next day of Veerpal to the effect that some fo Veerpal, he had reached there and on body of Veerpal was found lying ther ect anyone at that time, therefore, he h ke any action. By alleging that on ra the CCTV footage which was installe ent petitioner was seen visiting the ro l night of 11/12.10.2022. By alleging murder of the victim, he prayed for tak registered on the basis of a written iranpal alleging therein that on the tenanted premises of Veerpal, who . In his presence, the petitioner, who ome there and after a short while, he ant that the petitioner used to indulge e complainant had left the room of y i.e. on 12.10.2022, the complainant nd to be switched off. He visited the locked from outside. On making d by the landlady that he had e phone of Veerpal was found to be xt day, on receipt of a message from ome foul smell was emanating from on breaking open the lock of the g there. He disclosed that since he re, he had given writing to the Police t on raising suspicion, afterwards he installed outside the room of Veerpal the room of the victim several times lleging that the petitioner might have for taking action in the matter. ritten n the who who e, he ulge m of inant d the king had to be from from f the e he olice s he erpal imes have AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- 3. After CCTV footage of petitioner had ent night between 07: and lastly he had l to his room. He h after remaining th room at 01:16 AM room of the victi petitioner was pro disclosed that th committing murde and was interrog involvement in the that time. Offenc stands concluded. 4. It is a falsely implicated delay of 10 days explained. In his is no direct eye-wi found on the perso right hand. The i -2025 (O&M) 3 After registration of FIR, investigatio age of the nearby location was coll ad entered into the room of the victim 07:47 PM to 10:03 PM, by leavin e had locked the room of the victim at . He had again entered in the room o ing there for 16 minutes, he had com 16 AM and stayed there for 51 minu victim at 06:37 AM and then locked as produced before the Investigating hat the petitioner had suffered ex murder of the victim. The petitioner nterrogated. He suffered disclosu t in the crime and got effected the reco Offence under Section 201 of IPC w luded. It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. He is in custody days in lodging of the FIR whic In his first version the complainant ha witness to the murder of the victim e person of the victim which was in the The injury which was on non-vital p stigation proceedings were initiated. s collected which verified that the victim several times on the fateful leaving the said room after a while tim at 11:27 PM and then went back oom of the victim at 00:32 AM and d come out. He re-entered the said minutes and then again entered the ocked the room. On 22.10.2022, the ating Officer by one Khurshid who ed extra-judicial confession about oner was arrested on the same day isclosure statement admitting his e recovery of T-shirt worn by him at IPC was added. Investigation now l for the petitioner that he has been ustody since 24.10.2022. There is which has not been satisfactorily ant had not raised on anyone. There victim. Only 01 external injury was s in the nature of an incised wound at vital part of the body could not by . t the teful hile back and said d the , the who bout day his im at now been re is orily here was nd at t by AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- itself suggest hom by pressing his mo the medical eviden asphyxia, strangul of trial in the near examined so far. useful purpose an Article 21 of the placed on record Learned Trial Cou implicated the pet argued that the pet 5. Per c against the petitio commission of of from the CCTV fo the activities of t entered inside the locked the room o killing the victim occurrence and h account of his prol -2025 (O&M) 4 t homicidal assault. The allegations th his mouth and neck with a bed-sheet evidence produced on record as per w rangulation mark or smothering. Ther e near future as only 02 out of 22 pro o far. Continued incarceration of the ose and militates against his fundam f the Constitution of India. Learned ecord sworn testimony of the compl al Court as PW2 and a perusal of the he petitioner in commission of the sub the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel ha petitioner are quite serious in natu of offence of murder of the victim TV footage of the camera installed ne s of the petitioner clearly show that de the room of the victim several times oom of the victim from outside which victim he had locked the room. and has not offered any explanation is prolonged incarceration, he cannot b tions that he had murdered the victim sheet has not been established from per which there was no evidence of . There are no chances of conclusion 22 prosecution witnesses have been of the petitioner will not serve any undamental rights of liberty as per arned counsel for the petitioner has complainant as recorded before the of the same reveals that he has not the subject offences. It is, therefore, nsel has argued that the allegations n nature. His involvement in the ictim prima facie stands established lled near the place of occurrence and w that on the fateful night he had l times and finally it was he who had which strengthened the fact that after om. He had absconded after the anation for that purpose. Only on annot be extended benefit of bail in a ictim from ce of sion been any per r has e s not fore, tions the ished d had had after r the y on l in a AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- heinous crime like not deserve to be a 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p victim. As per the found in the first wound were smo found crawling in blood that came since the post-mor of death could be evidence in the fo locked room and t the fateful night an the matter. The previous petition The well settled p maintainable, how essentially show s mere superficial o reasons are pertin petitioner has ap -2025 (O&M) 5 e like the present one. It is, therefore to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have ca per the post-mortem report, one incise e first web space of right hand of the e smooth regular and showing blood ling in the wound over subcutaneous out of the wound, might have be mortem was conducted after a gap uld be ascertained as per the medic the form of the dead body of the vic and the act of the petitioner in visitin ight and then locking the same, are su The petitioner is accused of comm tition as filed by the petitioner had b ttled proposition of law is that a succ e, however, for such petition to su show some substantial change in the icial or ostensible change would not s pertinently required to be recorded as approached this Court again on erefore, argued that the petition does ubmissions made by learned counsel ave caused homicidal death of the incised wound of 4 cm X 1 cm was of the victim. Margins of the said blood infiltration. Maggots were neous tissue which suggest that the ave been consumed by the maggots a gap of 05 days. Though no cause medical opinion, the circumstantial the victim having been found in the visiting the room again and again on are suggestive of his involvement in committing a heinous crime. The had been dismissed as withdrawn. a successive regular bail petition is to succeed, the petitioner should in the circumstances. Showing of a not specify. Cogent and persuasive rded for grant of regular bail. The on the basis of his prolonged does unsel f the was said were t the gots ause ntial n the in on nt in The awn. on is ould of a asive The nged AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- incarceration. No d 15 days, however with capital punish established from t occurrence. It is discretionary relie circumstance of ea for considering th accusations, sever nature of evidenc reasonable appreh witnesses is also considered, and it the matter of gran prolonged period on bail, when the o to the observation (SC), Chenna Bo SCC, 242 and (Criminal) 280(SC 8. In th circumstances as allow this petition -2025 (O&M) 6 n. No doubt, he is in custody for a peri wever, the petitioner stands accused o punishment or life imprisonment. The from the CCTV footage of the came It is also well-settled proposition o y relief to be granted or denied of each case and there cannot be any ing the application for grant of bail. , severity of punishment if the accusa vidence in support of accusations pprehension of tampering with eviden s also to be weighed. Frivolity of p and it is only the element of genuinene f grant of bail. It is also well settled eriod of custody is not a sufficient gr n the offence alleged is serious. Refer vations made in Parmod Kumar Sax a Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. Sta nd State through CBI Vs. Amaram 0(SC). In the light of the foregoing es as discussed above, this Court fi etition. Accordingly, the petition is dis a period of 03 years, 06 months and used of a heinous crime punishable t. The allegations prima facie stands camera installed near the place of tion of law that grant of bail is a nied based on specific facts and be any exhaustive parameters set out f bail. The factors such as nature of accusations entail a conviction and tions are to be seen. That apart, evidence or threatening the material y of prosecution should always be uineness that has to be considered in settled proposition of law that mere ient ground for enlarging an accused Reference in this context can be had Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC . State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 aramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR oing legal principles and other urt finds no compelling ground to is dismissed. s and able tands ce of is a and t out re of and part, terial s be ed in mere used had CC ) 1 CR other d to AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-51560- 9. It is deciding this petit not be taken as an 10. Since any, is rendered in 08.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 7 It is clarified that any observation m s petition and shall not influence the as an expression of opinion on merits Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ation made in this order is only for ce the outcome of the trial and also merits. en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No y for also n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.