IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 214 Mukul Mittal State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner. The same be taken on record. 2. under Section 483 of been filed under Sections 137(2), 61(2) deleted later on] being referred to as ‘BNS’ 3. ‘Sumeet Goyal CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mukul Mittal VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal and Ms. Harmanjeet Kaur, for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Deepak Sabharwal and Mr. Pankaj Kundra for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of under Sections 103, 140(3), 137(2), 61(2), 238, 239, 249 137(2), 61(2) deleted later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Sumeet Goyal’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal and Ms. Harmanjeet Kaur, Advocates Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Deepak Sabharwal and Mr. Pankaj Kundra, Advocates ***** The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It case arising out of FIR No.21 dated 11.03.2025 103, 140(3), 137(2), 61(2), 238, 239, 249 [Sections 140(3), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter , Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner has 11.03.2025, [Sections 140(3), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document reported by the above aged 19 years and that on 09.03.2025 she left According to complainant, she did ‘Charis Goyal P.M., that she was in distress as she rape her was made they came to know that his kidnapped by along with two unknown persons in a Bolero vehicle No.PB03- 4. FIR was lodged and investigation taken up. As per prosecution course of investigation ‘Ravi Kumar whereas the fifth accused namely on 12.03.2025. It is the case of the body of ‘ Section 103 BNS 5. 6. petitioner that are analyzed CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 2 reported by the above-named complainant that his daughter aged 19 years, was studying in MCM DAV College, Sector 36, Chandigarh, and that on 09.03.2025 she left Chandigarh for her home According to complainant, she did not reach home and when they (parents of Charis Goyal’) tried to contact her, she told her mother that she was in distress as she was locked in a room and an attempt to rape her was made. It was further stated by the complainant that on enquiry, they came to know that his daughter had reached ‘Maur Mandi’, but kidnapped by ‘Mukul Mittal’ (the petitioner herein) with two unknown persons in a Bolero vehicle -AK-2976. Since there were allegations of kidnapping of his daughter, the FIR was lodged and investigation taken up. As per prosecution course of investigation, ‘Mukul Mittal’ Ravi Kumar’, uncle ‘Raj Kumar’ and whereas the fifth accused namely Dimple was produced in the Police Station on 12.03.2025. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2025 Charis Goyal’ was recovered from ‘Kotla Canal Branch’ and thus Section 103 BNS has been added in this case. Heard. It has been contended by learned petitioner that in the present case, if the facts and circumstances of the case are analyzed, by looking into the sequence of events, the only and only (O&M) 2 complainant that his daughter, ‘Charis Goyal was studying in MCM DAV College, Sector 36, Chandigarh, Chandigarh for her home in Maur Mandi. not reach home and when they (parents of she told her mother, at about 9:30-10:00 was locked in a room and an attempt to further stated by the complainant that on enquiry, daughter had reached ‘Maur Mandi’, but she was (the petitioner herein) and ‘Karan Bansal with two unknown persons in a Bolero vehicle, bearing Registration Since there were allegations of kidnapping of his daughter, the FIR was lodged and investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the (the petitioner herein), his fathe and ‘Karan Bansal’ were arrested, Dimple was produced in the Police Station prosecution that on 12.03.2025, the dead from ‘Kotla Canal Branch’ and thus added in this case. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the in the present case, if the facts and circumstances of the case by looking into the sequence of events, the only and only Charis Goyal’ was studying in MCM DAV College, Sector 36, Chandigarh, Mandi. not reach home and when they (parents of 10:00 was locked in a room and an attempt to further stated by the complainant that on enquiry, she was Karan Bansal’ Registration Since there were allegations of kidnapping of his daughter, the during the , his father were arrested, Dimple was produced in the Police Station the dead from ‘Kotla Canal Branch’ and thus ounsel for the in the present case, if the facts and circumstances of the case by looking into the sequence of events, the only and only GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document inference, which company of petitioner. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by taking leave from her hostel/college, the deceased had visited the petitioner at the native place of petitioner (which also place of the deceased) and after spending time with the petitioner, when she was suppo petitioner left home with deceased and in the intervening time, they went to the bank of canal, where accidently the deceased slipped in ultimately died. 7. petitioner given the colour of a case of murder, and that boy studying in 12 more than one year and four months Senior Counsel for the petitioner that investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recov petitioner, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose. contended that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to accused of petitioner. for the petitioner 8. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 3 , which can be drawn, is that the deceased was last seen in the company of petitioner. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in fact the petitioner and the deceased were by taking leave from her hostel/college, the deceased had visited the petitioner at the native place of petitioner (which also place of the deceased) and after spending time with the petitioner, when she was supposed to leave her native place for petitioner left home with deceased and in the intervening time, they went to the bank of canal, where accidently the deceased slipped in ultimately died. It has been contended by petitioner that by projecting wrong facts, a simple case of accident has been given the colour of a case of murder, and that boy studying in 12th class, has already suffered incarceration more than one year and four months. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recov petitioner, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to accused of petitioner. In view of above, the benefit of bail has been sought for the petitioner. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. (O&M) 3 that the deceased was last seen in the company of petitioner. According to learned Senior Counsel for the in fact the petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship and by taking leave from her hostel/college, the deceased had visited the petitioner at the native place of petitioner (which also happens to be native place of the deceased) and after spending time with the petitioner, when she native place for hostel/college at Chandigarh, the petitioner left home with deceased and in the intervening time, they went to the bank of canal, where accidently the deceased slipped into the canal and ontended by learned Senior Counsel for the by projecting wrong facts, a simple case of accident has been given the colour of a case of murder, and that the petitioner, who is a young class, has already suffered incarceration for a period of . It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the In view of above, the benefit of bail has been sought The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. that the deceased was last seen in the company of petitioner. According to learned Senior Counsel for the in a relationship and by taking leave from her hostel/college, the deceased had visited the native place of the deceased) and after spending time with the petitioner, when she hostel/college at Chandigarh, the petitioner left home with deceased and in the intervening time, they went to the canal and learned Senior Counsel for the by projecting wrong facts, a simple case of accident has been , who is a young for a period of . It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that investigation in this case is already ered from the possession of petitioner, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further the co- In view of above, the benefit of bail has been sought The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document According to learned cou no denial of the fact that the deceased was last seen petitioner, and that thereafter her body was recovered from the canal. As per learned counsel for the complainant of utmost importance in the present case. 9. accident had taken place, the first and foremost step, which was expected from the petitioner, was that firstly he should have sought assistance for should have informed his parents learned counsel for the complainant, steps, he tried to cover to the parents of the victim. complainant irresistible conclusi accidental. 10. complainant by a Special Investigating Team petitioner revealed that he had pushed the deceased in the canal, as she was insisting for marriage before the departure of petitioner to a foreign country. According to belongings of deceased f CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 4 According to learned counsel for the complainant, in the present case there is no denial of the fact that the deceased was last seen petitioner, and that thereafter her body was recovered from the canal. As per learned counsel for the complainant, post of utmost importance in the present case. According to learned counsel for the complainant accident had taken place, the first and foremost step, which was expected from the petitioner, was that firstly he should have sought assistance for retrieving the body of deceased; and secondly, he should have informed his parents as well as parents of deceased. As per learned counsel for the complainant, instead of adverting steps, he tried to cover-up and did not report the matter either to the police or to the parents of the victim. According to complainant, the abovementioned conduct of the petitioner leads to an irresistible conclusion that the death of victim was homicidal and not accidental. It has also been contended by complainant that during the course of investigation, which was conducted by a Special Investigating Team headed by a senior police offi petitioner revealed that he had pushed the deceased in the canal, as she was insisting for marriage before the departure of petitioner to a foreign country. According to learned counsel for the complainant belongings of deceased from the residence of petitioner further augments the (O&M) 4 nsel for the complainant, in the present case there is no denial of the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of petitioner, and that thereafter her body was recovered from the canal. As per , post-event conduct of the petitioner of utmost importance in the present case. learned counsel for the complainant, if any accident had taken place, the first and foremost step, which was expected from the petitioner, was that firstly he should have informed the police and retrieving the body of deceased; and secondly, he as well as parents of deceased. As per instead of adverting to abovementioned up and did not report the matter either to the police or According to learned counsel for the , the abovementioned conduct of the petitioner leads to an on that the death of victim was homicidal and not It has also been contended by learned counsel for the that during the course of investigation, which was conducted headed by a senior police officer, the petitioner revealed that he had pushed the deceased in the canal, as she was insisting for marriage before the departure of petitioner to a foreign country. learned counsel for the complainant, the recovery of rom the residence of petitioner further augments the nsel for the complainant, in the present case there is in the company of petitioner, and that thereafter her body was recovered from the canal. As per duct of the petitioner is if any accident had taken place, the first and foremost step, which was expected informed the police and retrieving the body of deceased; and secondly, he as well as parents of deceased. As per abovementioned up and did not report the matter either to the police or learned counsel for the , the abovementioned conduct of the petitioner leads to an on that the death of victim was homicidal and not learned counsel for the that during the course of investigation, which was conducted cer, the petitioner revealed that he had pushed the deceased in the canal, as she was insisting for marriage before the departure of petitioner to a foreign country. , the recovery of rom the residence of petitioner further augments the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document abovementioned plea that the incident in question was not an accident, but a murder. 11. 12. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- 13. circumstances, prevailing in the present case, the gravity of offence and the role attributed commenting anything on the merits of the case, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 5 abovementioned plea that the incident in question was not an accident, but a The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a - i. that request for bail on the ground of parity is sustainable, as the co benefit of bail, were not directly responsible for of the victim; ii. that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner that he was last seen with the deceased and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was recovered; iii. that although the confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded in police custody and therefore, there is a question mark with regard to and credibility, but if the abovementioned confessional statement is considered in view of the post of the petitioner, this plea of the petit convince that the death of victim had taken place on account of accident only. Taking into consideration, all the circumstances, prevailing in the present case, the gravity of offence and the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of offence, commenting anything on the merits of the case, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail (O&M) 5 abovementioned plea that the incident in question was not an accident, but a The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a request for bail on the ground of parity is as the co-accused, who were accorded the benefit of bail, were not directly responsible for the death that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner that he was last seen with the deceased and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was recovered; and that although the confessional statement of the petitioner police custody and therefore, there is a question mark with regard to its admissibility in evidence and credibility, but if the abovementioned confessional statement is considered in view of the post-event conduct of the petitioner, this plea of the petitioner fails to convince that the death of victim had taken place on account of accident only. all the above-discussed mitigating circumstances, prevailing in the present case, the gravity of offence and the to the petitioner in the commission of offence, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present petition, being abovementioned plea that the incident in question was not an accident, but a A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a request for bail on the ground of parity is not accused, who were accorded the death that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner that he was last seen with the deceased and thereafter, the that although the confessional statement of the petitioner police custody and therefore, there is a its admissibility in evidence and credibility, but if the abovementioned confessional event conduct ioner fails to convince that the death of victim had taken place on mitigating circumstances, prevailing in the present case, the gravity of offence and the but without it is hereby observed that the , being GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document devoid of merit accordingly. 14. shall not have any 15. disposed of, accordingly. 23.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-21694-2026 (O&M) 6 devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby accordingly. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 6 dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed it is clarified that the abovementioned observations on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No dismissed, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document