Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit vs State Of Haryana on 27 November, 2025
CRM-M No.18120 of 2025 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
*****
CRM-M No.18120 of 2025 (O & M)
Date of decision : 27.11.2025
Date of uploading : 27.11.2025
Rohit .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Sohal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla, Advocate, for the complainant
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.142 dated 10.5.2024 under
Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 427 and 120-B of the IPC,
registered at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'Sir, the circumstances of the case are such that on the night of 09.05.2024
information was received at the police station through e-mail from PGIMS
Rohtak that Rajpal son of Hariram resident of Sulodha was admitted due to
injuries sustained in a fight and he had died, on which information INSP/SHO
along with ASI Ravindra No. 114 in government Bolero vehicle number IIR-
14GV-1028 driver EASI Chand No. 742 left for village Sulodha for action and SI
Yogesh Kumar No. 2 and SI Hariom No. I has been sent to PGIMS Rohtak, who
1 of 6
then INSP/SHO reached village Sulodha, reached at the spot where deceased
Rajpal's son Vinod and daughter Kusum were found present, who told that
Rajesh Kumari was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak, who on discharged, and will give
the application only after coming home, after waiting and on Rajesh Kumari's
coming home, Vinod son of Rajpal resident of Sulodha presented the above
application and the same is annexed. Subject: Application for legal action
against Mohit son of Dinesh, Somi son of Sunil, Ajay son of Bijendra, Sunny son
of Billu resident of Sulodha and Lakhan, Bharat resident of Babra and Sagar
resident of Khedi Khumar and others and one person whom I know by face, for
forcibly entering the house and killing my father and injuring my mother and
sister. Sir, it is my humble request that I Vinod Kumar son of late Shri Rajpal
Singh, age 24 years, am a permanent resident of village Sulodha, district Jhajhar
and am a shopkeeper by profession. Sir, on 09/05/2024 at about 4.45 P.M. a boy
Sunny son of Billu came to my shop and made me talk to Ajay alias Chhotu son of
Bijendra resident of Sulodha from his mobile phone and Chhotu pressurized me
to give cold drink on credit. I refused to lend him cold drink because he had not
paid off my previous credit amount. He threatened me over the phone and told me
that he will have to face consequences. I informed my father about this and my
father settled the matter by talking to Chotu etc. over the phone. After this, all
the above accused suddenly formed a gang and cut the power line from the
transformer at night at around 10.30 P.M. and forcibly entered our house with
sticks, axes, pointed weapons and sharp weapons and started beating my sister
Kusum and mother Rajesh and breaking things. And they attacked my father with
a sharp weapon. They attacked him so many times, that on the spot my father was
in serious condition. All these people forcibly dragged him out into the street and
then again my father was brutally beaten by all the accused persons with
weapons and sticks which was in their hands outside the street, due to which my
father fell unconscious. All these accused ran away after threatening to kill my
entire family and while leaving they also said that if I refused to lend them things
on credit in future, then they told my father that this time we have killed you, next
time we will kill your son and grandson. After hearing the screams, I came down
from the roof and with the help of my uncle's son Naveen son of Shri Bhagwan
and my mother, and we took my father to a private hospital (Global) in Jhajjar,
where due to the critical condition, the hospital administration told us to take him
to PGIMS Rohtak. There, during treatment in PGI Rohtak, my father died due to
the above injuries and beating. Hence, I request you to register a case against all
the above culprits under sections related to illegal forced borrowing, murder,
breaking vehicles, forcibly entering the house, lethal attack, murder with sharp
weapons and threat to kill. I also request you to protect our life and property. The
culprits should also be given the harshest punishment. I request you with folded
hands that police protection should be provided to me immediately so that I can
2 of 6
stay alive and get all the culprits of my father punished appropriately. I shall be
grateful to you.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 19.5.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further argued that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution
version is taken to be correct, the CCTV footage sought to be employed
against the petitioner as evidence, is not clear and hence, it is not
decipherable that the petitioner was present at the spot. Learned counsel
has further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the
petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that all the private prosecution
witnesses have either been recorded or given up by the prosecution, thus,
there is no chance that the petitioner may tamper with the witnesses.
Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a young man aged
23 years with no criminal antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel has further submitted that wooden stick, used in the
commission of offence, has been recovered from the petitioner and there
is clear material evidence available against the petitioner so as to
conclusively hold his culpability. Learned State counsel seeks to place on
record custody certificate dated 27.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on
record.
4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are
3 of 6
direct and serious allegations against the petitioner, hence, he ought not to
be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has urged
that the offence of murder was pre-planned and the petitioner (herein) was
an active participant therein. Learned counsel has further argued that it is
for the accused to explain as to what he was doing at the spot in question
and in case of non-failure of giving such explanation, the petition in hand
deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 19.5.2024 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 11.8.2024.
Total 34 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 3 have been
examined whereas 2 have been given up. It would be apposite to refer
herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof
reads as under:-
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has
no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to
have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the
State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on
the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution
applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict.
The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is
presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly.
howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as
well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy
4 of 6
trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the
Constitution."
6.1 It is not in dispute that all the private prosecution witnesses
either have been examined or have been given up. The rival contention
raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall essentially be
ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it
may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to
indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of
justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 27.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 01 year, 6 months and 8 days & is not shown to be involved in any
other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
5 of 6
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
27.11.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
