[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raja vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.33075 of 2025
Raja ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 18.11.2025
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.11.2025
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.11.2025
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Tanya Vashist, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
"BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
1 of 5
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
135 07.11.2022 Rohadai, District 201, 302 and 34 of IPC
Rewari
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of
complaint submitted by the complainant Ramesh Nath on 07.11.2022
alleging that on 05.11.2022, the dead body of his 20 years old son Amit and
one Aman were found floating in a well situated near his village and he had
given intimation to the police about their drowning. He disclosed that on
07.11.2022, he was informed by one Mukundra Nath that on 02.11.2022, he
had seen his brother Aman and Amit while going towards kutcha path of
Village Hansawas on a motorbike along with the present petitioner Raja and
Rohit. The complainant also disclosed that he along with some respectable
members of the village had questioned the petitioner and Rohit and they had
admitted the factum of killing the victims on account of their previous
quarrel that had taken place on 30.10.2022. He raised suspicion that the
petitioner and co-accused had thrown the dead bodies of the victims in the
well after committing their murder. Inquest proceedings of the dead bodies
of the victims had already been conducted and DDR No.24 was entered.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. Postmortem examination of dead bodies was conducted. The
petitioner and co-accused Rohit were arrested on 07.11.2022. They were
interrogated and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement
in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. They also got
2 of 5
recovered the motorbike used at the time of occurrence. Statement of
witness Mukundra Nath was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The call
detail records of the victims was also collected. Investigation now stands
concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 07.11.2022. The
trial is moving at a snail's pace as only 01 out of 21 witnesses has been
examined so far. There is no direct eye witness to the occurrence. The case
is based on circumstantial evidence. The complainant is avoiding his
appearance as a witness before the trial Court since long. The prolonged
incarceration without timely conclusion of the trial has amounted to
violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future.
The petitioner has a permanent abode and hence there are no chances of his
absconding. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
5. Status report has been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the
petitioner. There are chances of his absconding or intimidating the
witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does
not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. It is well settled proposition of law that the Court while
considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in
3 of 5
mind. Such as where there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances peculiar
to the case, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the danger of accused
absconding or fleeing if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being threatened etc. However, at the same time, the period of
incarceration is also a relevant factor to be considered while deciding a bail
application. Each day spent by an accused in custody provides a cause of
action for filing bail application. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for
grant of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial
should not become punitive. Pre trial incarceration should not be a replica of
post conviction sentencing and this principle is a part of the broader
approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the
right of the accused with the requirement of criminal justice system.
Prolonged incarceration militates against the most precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner in this
case is in custody since 07.11.2022 i.e. over a period of three years. Only 01
out of 21 witnesses has been examined so far. Obviously, there are no
chances of conclusion of trial in near future. The continued detention of the
petitioner as such would not serve any useful purpose. Taking into
consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the period
spent by him in custody and the above discussed facts, this Court is of the
considered opinion that a case for allowing the petition is made out.
Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted
4 of 5
to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.11.2025 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
