1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRM-M-29695-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.08.2026 Irfan ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 2. This petition for bail is first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.156 dated 28.04.2025, Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 127(6), 61(2), 103(1), 238(a), 315 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Sections 25(1-b)(a), 27 and 29 of Arms Act. 3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Yogesh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his younger brother ‘Ajay’ had entered into an agreement for the sale of a piece of land, ad-measuring one GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 killa to ‘Deepanshu’ and for the abovesaid purpose he had visited ‘Tehsil Office Sampala’ on 30.04.2025. According to complainant, thereafter his brother ‘Ajay’ left his car and mobile phone near the water house of his village, and went missing. By virtue of abovementioned complaint, the complainant requested for the search of his missing brother. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on basis of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged on 28.04.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 127(6) of BNS. According to prosecution subsequently, i.e. on 22.06.2025, the complainant moved another application before the police, wherein he stated that in the enquiry made by him at his own level, he had come to know that ‘Sumit’ and ‘Bhupender’ used to visit his brother, and that they might have killed his brother for grabbing the money, received as sale consideration on the sale of land, i.e. Rs.1,30,00,000/-, and that they might have disposed of his dead body. 5. According to prosecution in view of abovementioned suspicion, ‘Sumit’ and ‘Bhupender’ were interrogated and they suffered a disclosure statements, pursuant to which dead body of ‘Ajay’, buried by them, was recovered. It is case of the prosecution that on the basis of subsequent disclosure statement, suffered by ‘Bhupender’, a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- was recovered from his house and he demarcated the place, where he had shot ‘Ajay’. 6. As per prosecution, in the abovementioned disclosure statement, the accused ‘Bhupender’ nominated ‘Irfan’ (the petitioner herein) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 as co-accused and therefore, ‘Irfan’ was arrested, who on interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement, pursuant to which spade (kassi), which was used for burying dead body of ‘Ajay’, was recovered. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was responsible for causing death of deceased ‘Ajay’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only allegation against the petitioner is that after the murder of ‘Ajay’, his body was taken to the village of petitioner, where with the help of petitioner, it was buried. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and one month, and that he has clean antecedents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that two co-accused, namely ‘Himanshu’ and ‘Yupender’, have already been accorded the benefit of bail by this Court. 9. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, first of all the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity, as the role attributed to the petitioner is altogether different from the role attributed to co-accused, namely ‘Himanshu’ and ‘Yupender’. The learned State Counsel has also contended that involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence is proved from the fact that the spade, which was used for digging the hole for burial of the deceased, has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 10. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner has identified the place, where the dead body of ‘Ajay’ was buried, and that on the spade, recovered from the possession of petitioner, blood stains were present. 11. The record has been perused carefully. 12. 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 decision: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year and one month; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that as per story set-out by the prosecution at the time of murder of ‘Ajay’, the petitioner was not present on the spot; iv) that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in burring the dead body of ‘Ajay’; v) that investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of forty seven prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined, so far; vii) that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 13. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 14. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 15. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 16. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 17. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.14 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document