CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Raghbir @ Raghi … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Bahul Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. AG, Haryana. *** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner Raghbir @ Raghi, aged about 71 years, has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.378, dated 02.12.2023, under Sections 323, 452, 302 (Sections 450, 325 & 307 added later on) of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Badli, District Jhajjar. 2. During the night time on 01.12.2023, incident in question took place inside the house of the complainant-Nirmala w/o Malkhe, who is deceased in the present case. As per version in the FIR, at about 12:00 AM (midnight), while the complainant and her husband were asleep in their room, one person entered in the room holding a sharp-edged weapon and struck her husband Malkhe on the head and face with the weapon. In attempt to rescue her husband, complainant was also given a blow on her head. One Vinod, son of Hawa Singh (complainant’s brother-in-law’s son), was called who in turn contacted complainant’s son, namely, Sunil. Thereupon, complainant’s husband was got admitted in Jaffarpur Hospital, RAJAN 2026.07.14 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) 2 where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted. During investigation, accused Raghbir @ Raghi (petitioner herein) was arrested, after being identified through CCTV footage by the son of the complainant, namely, Sunil. One iron rod with sharp surface, a lathi and a torch were recovered from the residential plot at petitioner's instance. Although the FIR does not allege that the complainant witnessed the event, a narrative was subsequently built upon viewing the CCTV footage, asserting 40 years old enmity between the deceased and accused Raghbir @ Raghi (petitioner herein). 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Pardeep Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badli, District Jhajjar, dated 05.05.2026, which is taken on record. Referring to the explanation provided, learned State counsel submits that based on the CCTV footage and the subsequent disclosure statement regarding their long-standing enmity, it was concluded that petitioner was the only individual who could have committed murder. Another reason, provided is that within the CCTV footage, spanning 2 hours and 23 minutes, only petitioner was observed loitering in the immediate vicinity of the locality. He further submits that, after arrest of the petitioner, not only was a sharp-edged iron rod, i.e. weapon of crime, recovered alongside a wooden stick and a torch at his instance, but blood-stained clothes and shoes worn by the petitioner on the fateful night, were also recovered at his RAJAN 2026.07.14 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) 3 instance. Furthermore, as per FSL report, blood belonging to Group ‘A’, which matches that of the deceased, was found on the weapon of crime as well as on the clothes and shoes worn by the petitioner. On this point, a specific query is raised by the Court regarding the exact manner in which the CCTV footage was examined by the Investigating Officer or by the son of the deceased, namely, Sunil, who noticed that petitioner was armed with a weapon or walking empty handed. Learned State counsel refers to the identification memo (Annexure P-4) and submits that on seeing the CCTV footage, it was the complainant’s son Sunil, who identified the person holding the iron rod in his hand as the petitioner-Raghbir @ Raghi. 4. To counter assertions regarding CCTV footage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact, petitioner resides directly opposite the deceased’s house, which is the place of occurrence. Therefore, merely spotting the petitioner moving around the area, does not justify involving him as an accused on the basis of suspicion, subsequent to which recoveries were effected. Moreover, as there was no eyewitness to the incident, and had the petitioner actually been the person who entered the house, there was no logical reason for the complainant’s son-Sunil to delay identifying the petitioner, whom he had already known for several years. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that an old rivalry existed between the deceased and the petitioner herein; had this been the actual narrative, his name would have appeared in the FIR itself, which was registered only after taking the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. RAJAN 2026.07.14 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) 4 5. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is already inside the jail for the period of last more than 02 years, 07 months and 04 days. Moreover, there is no other criminal case registered against him. Primarily, the prosecution case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Whether the chain of circumstances is complete and sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner can only be examined after the evidence is led during the trial. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prolonged incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 6. In view of totality of circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed herein-above, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 7. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 8. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on RAJAN 2026.07.14 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2807-2026(O&M) 5 the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. ( Sanjay Vashisth ) Judge 10.07.2026 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RAJAN 2026.07.14 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document