109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50358-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.07.2026 Amit Yadav …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Anil Singh Rathore, Advocate Mr. Pulkit Mago, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.264, dated 26.07.2023, registered under Sections 302,201 of IPC, at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from a bare perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1), it is apparent that the petitioner was not named initially as an accused. However, later on, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case. Further, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances, projected by the prosecution, itself proves that the petitioner had not committed the crime as alleged. He further submits that in the present case, the dead body of the HITESH 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-50358-2025 (O&M) -2 deceased was recovered after several days and after the post mortem report, an opinion was sought from the doctors regarding the cause of death of Vinkal, since deceased. After perusing the post mortem report and the chemical analysis report of the viscera, the Board of doctors have opined that no definite opinion regarding the cause of death could be given, due to the fact that the dead body was at an advance stage of decomposition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2023 i.e for the last more than 02 years and 11 months and 05 material witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined. He further submits that the prosecution has placed reliance on 25 witnesses in the present case and every attempt has been made to delay the recording of the witnesses before the Trial Court. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to show that soon before his death, Vinkal, since deceased was in the company of the present petitioner and he was bound to explain the circumstances, under which Vinkal had died. Apart from that, even other corroborative evidence in the shape of call details and other material was also available to connect him with the commission of crime. However, he could not dispute the fact that the Board of doctors could not render any opinion regarding the cause of death in the present case. It is also admitted that the petitioner is a first offender and was never involved in the past. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. HITESH 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-50358-2025 (O&M) -3 5. Undoubtedly, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence in the present case and the prosecution is yet to lead evidence before the Trial Court to prove the chain of circumstances, so as to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. At this stage, this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has suffered custody for almost 02 years and 11 months and all material witnesses including complainant have already been examined by the prosecution. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing his bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of, accordingly. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 16.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh