CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 303 CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Ramphal @ Rafi ... Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’)by the appellant, challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in case arising out of FIR No.34, dated 15.02.2024, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, whereby an application for grant of regular as filed by the appellant had been dismissed. 2. The adumbrated facts, as emanating from the record, are that the victim Gosha Kaur, who was working as a nurse in Tohana, had gone HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) -2- missing since 04.02.2024, and an FIR was registered under Section 346 IPC in this regard. On 15.02.2024, her dead body was found floating near the Ghaggar River at Ratia. The same was taken out. As nobody claimed the dead body, it was cremated after conducting inquest proceedings and post- mortem examination. On 10.07.2024, the respondent No. 2-complainant, who is the father of the deceased, identified his daughter from the photographs and alleged that she had been murdered by the present appellant, who had been pressurising him to marry her, but she had refused. 3. As per the further allegations, the appellant was arrested on 12.02.2024 after being produced by his brother at the police station. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the murder of victim Gosha Kaur by disclosing that in December, 2023, he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Gauri Singh to kill the victim as she had been pressurising him to marry her even after his marriage. Accused Gauri had introduced the appellant to a contract killer, namely, Jagdish @ Khan, who had agreed to kill the victim in lieu of money. The appellant had then called the victim to Tohana and had taken her in a swift car. As per the disclosure, while on the way, co-accused Jagdish @ Khan joined them and then both of them had strangulated the victim with a mobile charging wire, thereby causing her death. The dead body of the victim was concealed in the boot of the car, was packed in a sack and was then thrown into the Ghaggar river. He also disclosed about making payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs to co-accused Jagdish @ Khan. On the basis of his disclosure statement, accused Jagdish @ Khan and Gauri were nominated as accused. Investigation now stands completed. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) -3- 4. The appellant filed application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court which had been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.03.2026. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order dated 10.03.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated only on the basis of suspicion. Even the identity of the dead body to be that of Gosha Kaur has not been established as the cremation of the dead body had been conducted long back before recording statement of the father of Gosha Kaur and even as per the DNA report, the DNA profile in dead body has not matched with that of the appellant and Gosha Kaur. He is in custody since long. His antecedents are clean. There is no eye witness to the murder of the victim. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence, the same being recorded under custody of the police. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 15 out of 36 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is, therefore, argued that the present appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be given benefit of regular bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has argued that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The call detail records of the cell phone of the appellant and the co-accused have been collected during the course of investigation and the same as well as the location chart of the cell phone of the appellant and co-accused was found in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The trial is going in a proper manner. He is the main conspirator and active HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) -4- participant in the commission of offence of murder of the victim. The dead body of the victim was identified by her parents through photographs. Only on account of his prolonged incarceration, the appellant cannot be stated to have become entitled to release on bail. As per the forensic report, the DNA profile could not be obtained from the bone of the dead body of the deceased as it did not yield amplification of DNA despite repetition indicating degradation or quality of DNA and that is why, it could not be compared with the reference DNA profile of parents of the victims and it cannot be stated that DNA of the parents of the victim did not match. With these broad submissions, it is stressed that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The appellant by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused and by engaging a contract killer, is alleged to have committed the murder of the victim. He was an active participant in the occurrence. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against him. On account of mere fact that the DNA profile of the bone of the recovered dead body could not be obtained due to degradation or poor quality of DNA, it cannot be stated that the appellant has become entitled to be exonerated. The trial is going on at a proper pace. He is in custody since long and length of incarceration can be considered to be a factor weighing in his favour but it is well settled proposition of law that prolonged incarceration alone cannot overshadow the gravity of the accusations of murder under Section 302 IPC. It is also well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1267-2026 (O&M) -5- each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the appellant, the manner in which he is alleged to have committed the murder of the victim, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any compelling ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document