CRM-M-32391- IN THE H AJAY @ KALU 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. M Ms. P Mr. S Mr. N **** MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya of regular bail in under Sections 103 short “BNS”) (Sec HTM Hisar, Distri -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ALU 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 Mr. Mohit, Advocate and Ms. Pavitar, Advocate and Mr. Sachin, Advocate for the petition Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.85 ns 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 61 of Bhara (Sections 190 and 238 of BNS add , District Hisar. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-32391-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 06.08.2026 onounced 07.08.2026 loaded on the 07.08.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA etitioner filed by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 858 dated 10.12.2024 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for S added later on) at Police Station M) ction grant tered (for ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.07 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32391- 2. The a recorded by the co 09.12.2024, his so return home. In th of his son lying in had rushed to the He raised suspicio and Vikram with w murder of his son. 3. After Post-mortem of t alongwith the c investigation of th interrogation, they the murder of th petitioner got rec Offence under Sec recovered the vehi records of the pet procured. Investig 4. It is a falsely implicated witness to the m -2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was register the complainant-Ramniwas, alleging his son Surender had left home to g . In the next morning, he received inf ying in a vicinity of Sector 1-4 near N to the spot and found multiple injuries uspicion that Monu Bihari, Rohit, Mo with whom the victim had previous e is son. After registration of FIR, investigatio of the dead body of the victim w the co-accused Mohit and Suraj n of the case on 11.12.2024. All of the n, they suffered disclosure statements of the victim by throwing bricks ot recovered the jeans worn by him er Section 238 of BNS was added. e vehicle used at the time of commiss the petitioner and co-accused alongw vestigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He was not named the murder of the victim. The ca egistered on the basis of a statement eging therein that in the afternoon of e to go to his shop but he did not ed information about the dead body near New Jawahar Nagar, Hisar. He injuries on the dead body of his son. it, Mohit, Kaku, Monu, Suryanagar vious enmity might have hand in the stigation proceedings were initiated. tim was conducted. The petitioner Suraj @ Golu were joined into hem were formally arrested. On s admitting their involvement in ricks and stones upon him. The by him at the time of occurrence. The accused Suraj @ Golu got mmission of the offence. Call detail longwith tower locations were also l for the petitioner that he has been named in the FIR. There is no eye- he case rests upon circumstantial ment on of not body r. He son. agar n the ated. ioner into . On nt in The ence. u got etail also been - ntial AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.07 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32391- evidence. There prolonged incarce required for furthe as only 06 out of 2 accused Suraj, wh bail. The principl cases cannot be c With these broad allowed. 5. Per c consideration the does not deserve to 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p he was apprehend 11.12.2024. How basis, the petition matter of trial an during trial that a admissibility of th based upon circu allegedly suffered -2026 (O&M) 3 here was no motive for the petitione ncarceration for a period of about 01 y further investigation. Trial will take ut of 24 prosecution witnesses have b aj, whose case was on similar footing rinciple of parity weighs in his favou t be considered to be a reason for de broad submissions, it is urged that Per contra, learned State counsel n the gravity of the allegations as lev erve to be extended benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner was not named in the rehended along with the co-accused However, the status report does not s etitioner was nominated as an accuse ial and only upon thorough assessme that any definite conclusion can be y of the disclosure statement suffered circumstantial evidence. Apart fr ffered by the petitioner, no other in titioner to kill the victim. He is in ut 01 year and 08 months. He is not ll take considerable time to conclude have been examined so far. The co- ooting, has been extended benefit of favour. His involvement in other for denying benefit of bail to him. d that the petition deserves to be unsel has argued that taking into as levelled against the petitioner, he ubmissions made by learned counsel in the FIR. As per the status report, cused Mohit and Suraj @ Golu on s not specify as to how and on what accused in the present case. It is a sessment of the evidence to be led an be drawn as to the veracity and ffered by the petitioner. The case is art from the disclosure statement ther incriminating circumstance has is in s not lude - fit of other him. o be into r, he unsel port, u on what is a e led and se is ment has AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.07 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32391- been put forth by was recovered. T obviously take co witnesses have be extended benefit o same benefit. Tak meaning to make a the trial in any ma released on bail, satisfaction of the concerned. 8. Since any, is rendered in 05.08.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 rth by the investigating agency. At hi red. The petitioner is in custody sin ke considerable time to conclude as ave been examined so far. Similarly nefit of bail. On parity, the petitione it. Taking into consideration the abov make any comments on the merits of t ny manner, the petition is allowed and bail, subject to his furnishing perso of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No At his instance, jeans worn by him dy since 11.12.2024. The trial will de as only 06 out of 24 prosecution ilarly situated, co-accused has been titioner deserves to be extended the e above discussed facts but without its of the case lest the same prejudice ed and the petitioner is ordered to be personal and surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No him will ution been d the thout dice to be the trate n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.07 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.