IN 218 Suresh Kum State of Ha [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PA learned Sta 2. under Secti been filed under Sect Bhuna, Di petitioner, w 3. the instan ‘complaina CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIGA sh Kumar VERSUS Haryana AM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for Mr. Rishi Pal Chaudhary, Adv ***** YA PARTAP SINGH, J. Reply, already filed, and the c ed State Counsel, be taken on record. This petition for bail is third r Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagari filed with regard to a case arising out r Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 34 of , District Fatehabad. The second ioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, vid The abovementioned FIR cam instance of ‘Krishan Kumar’, her plainant’ only. It was stated by the a 1 F PUNJAB & HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.08.2026 ..... Petition RSUS ..... Responde SURYA PARTAP SINGH ate for y, Advocate for the petitioner. **** d the custody certificate, filed today, b cord. hird petition, filed by the petition Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It ing out of FIR No.52 dated 10.02.202 of Indian Penal Code, Police Statio econd petition for bail, filed by th n, vide order dated 22.01.2026. IR came into being in the year 1997 hereinafter being referred to a e above-named complainant that &M) .2026 etitioner pondent day, by etitioner has 2.2023, Station by the 1997 at to as that his GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document wife ‘Kavi petitioner h opposed b complainan brother ‘Sa ‘Hardik’, immediatel complainan ‘Sonakshi’ ‘Kavita’ an complainan 4. abovementi investigatio investigatio 5. 6. this is third maintainab no significa the petition of more tha CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) 2 ‘Kavita’ had developed illicit relatio ioner herein), and that the abovemen sed by the complainant, as well a nant, on 03.01.2023 at about 05:0 er ‘Sandeep’, who informed him that was in critical condition. As ediately shifted to hospital, where lainant further stated that, thereafte akshi’ told him that she had overheard ita’ and ‘Suresh Kumar’, when they lainant. It is the case of the ementioned complaint, formal FIR o tigation taken up. According to pr tigation, the petitioner and co-accused Heard. It has been contended by learn is third petition for bail, filed by the tainable as from the date of dismissal gnificant progress in trial has taken p etitioner, the petitioner has already su ore than three years, five months and 2 relationship with ‘Suresh Kumar’ (th vementioned relationship was strong well as his family members. As p t 05:00 pm, he received a call of h m that his (complainant’s) son, name As per complainant, ‘Hardik’ wa where he was declared dead. Th ereafter, his (complainant’s) daught rheard conversation between her moth n they were planning to eliminate the prosecution that pursuant FIR of this case was lodged and th to prosecution, during the course o ccused ‘Kavita’ were arrested. y learned counsel for the petitioner th by the petitioner, and that the same issal of second petition on 22.01.202 aken place. As per learned counsel fo ady suffered incarceration for a perio hs and fifteen days, and that the trial ar’ (the strongly As per l of his namely ik’ was d. The aughter mother nate the ant to and the urse of ner that same is 1.2026, nsel for a period e trial is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document not likely t witnesses, f 7 that statem that the co involvemen evidence is 8. abovementi that in the regard to in to learned petitioner, supported t co-accused they had pl by learned asphyxia, w 9. 22.01.2026 dismissed, was convey bail. Accor CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) 3 ikely to be concluded in near future, a esses, fourteen are yet to be examined. It has also been contended by statements of three material witnesses the contents of abovementioned state lvement of petitioner in the commissi is not reliable. The learned State Cou ementioned arguments. It has been co in the present case there is very spe d to involvement of petitioner in the arned State Counsel, 12-year-old ioner, namely ‘Sonakshi’, has already orted the prosecution case with regard cused ‘Kavita’, and the present petitio planned to eliminate the complain earned State counsel that death of yxia, which is an unnatural death. The learned State Counsel .2026, when the second petition for issed, it was dismissed at a stage whe conveyed by the Court that it was no According to learned State Counsel 3 ture, as out of twenty seven prosecutio ined. ed by learned counsel for the petition nesses have already been recorded, an d statements show that with regard mission of crime, the abovementione Counsel has controverted th een contended by learned State Couns ry specific and reliable evidence wi in the commission of crime. Accordin old daughter of co-accused of th lready been examined, and that she ha regard to the fact that her mother, i. petition had illicit relationship, and th mplainant. It has also been pointed o th of victim had taken place due unsel has further contended that o n for bail, filed by the petitioner, wa e when after arguing at some length, as not inclined to grant the benefit unsel, the testimonies, which are bein secution etitioner ed, and gard to ntioned d the Counsel ce with cording of the she has ther, i.e. and that nted out due to that on was ength, it nefit of being GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document referred tod also. While case from Counsel ha 10. 11. the relevan decision:- 12. abovementi the case, it CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) 4 red today were available on the date o While claiming that there is no chang from the date of dismissal of secon has sought for dismissal of the pre The record has been perused c A perusal of record shows that elevant factors which are required to - i. that this is third petitio and the second one was hearing arguments; ii. that the entire material was available at the t petition also. Thus, the re-appreciated again in t iii. that there is, no si circumstances from the petition; and iv. that with regard to ne offence and the present been collected by the In is yet to be produced be Taking into consideration th ementioned factors, but without comm it is hereby held that the present p 4 date of dismissal of second bail petitio change in circumstances in the prese second bail petition, the learned Sta he present petition. used carefully. s that in the present case, following a red to be taken into consideration for petition for bail filed by the petitione e was dismissed in the recent past aft aterial, which has been referred toda the time of decision of second ba s, the same evidence/factors cannot b ain in the present petition; no significant change in attendin m the date of dismissal of second ba to nexus between the commission o resent petitioner, sufficient evidence ha the Investigating Agency and the sam ced before the trial Court. tion the cumulative effect of all th t commenting anything on the merits o esent petition, which is third petition petition present ed State ing are on for a titioner, ast after today, nd bail nnot be ttending nd bail ssion of nce has he same all the erits of for GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bail, is de dismissed 13. shall not ha 14. disposed of 07.08.202 Gaurav Thaku CRM-M-35900-2026 (O&M) 5 devoid of merits and deserves sed, accordingly. However, it is clarified that t not have any bearing on the merits of Pending miscellaneous appl sed of, accordingly. 2026 hakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 5 erves dismissal. The same is hereb that the abovementioned observation rits of the case. application(s), if any, shall stan (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE oned Yes/No Yes/No hereby rvations stand ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document