[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chahat vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.39535 of 2025
Chahat ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 19.11.2025
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. Neeru Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, 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
156 04.03.2022 Kundli, District 302 and 34 of IPC
Sonipat
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint
submitted by the complainant Rajpal alleging that his younger son Arjun @
Chiya was addicted to the vices of consuming intoxicants. He used to leave
home without intimating anyone. On 03.03.2022, he left home at about 6
PM and did not come back. In the morning of 04.03.2022, he received
intimation about his dead body lying in the gymnasium of Village Janti
kalan. His motorcycle was also standing there. A case under Section 302 of
IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Postmortem
examination of dead body was conducted and as per the report, the death had
occurred due to shock and hemorrhage consequent to ante mortem injuries
as sustained by the victim.
3. As per the further allegations, on 07.03.2022, the complainant
recorded a supplementary statement informing that he had come to know
that the present petitioner, accused Sachin @ Matha and Roopak had a hand
in the murder of the victim and as on the evening of 03.03.2022, the victim
was seen in the company of the present petitioner. The petitioner and co-
accused were nominated as such. They were apprehended on the same day
and were interrogated. On interrogation, the petitioner suffered disclosure
statement to the effect that on the fateful day, he had gone to the village
gymnasium on the motorbike of the victim who was already known to him.
They had also joined the co-accused. A verbal altercation had taken place
2 of 5
amongst themselves and then he along with accused Roopak had struck
blows with danda on the person of the victim. Thereafter, they had called the
co-accused Sachin @ Matha and had assaulted the victim and had beaten
him to death. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he also got recovered
the wooden baton used by him in the crime and his mobile phone. The call
detail records of the petitioner and the co-accused Sachin were collected
which showed exchange of conversation between them. The audio recording
of telephonic conversation that had taken place between the petitioner and
the co-accused Sachin @ Matha had been obtained and converted into a pen
drive. The investigation now stands completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. There is
no eye-witness to the murder of the victim. The case is based upon
circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to connect him with the
crime. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him and the co-
accused cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. There is nothing
on record to show that he had any common intention with the co-accused to
commit the murder of the victim. A false recovery of a neem stick has been
planted upon him. The said stick is a freshly broken stick. He had no motive
to kill the victim and as per own case of the prosecution, it was a case of
monetary transaction between the co-accused Sachin and the deceased. The
accused Sachin has already been extended benefit of bail. His case is on
better footing and he, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. He is in
custody since 07.03.2022. The trial is going on at a snail's pace and will take
3 of 5
considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, argued that the petition
deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has
argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner
who was an active participant of murder of the victim. An audio recording of
the conversation that had taken place between the victim, petitioner and the
accused Sachin @ Matha is part of the challan report and shows the
complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The allegations against the
petitioner are graver than that of the co-accused Sachin who has been
extended benefit of bail. There are chances of petitioner's fleeing or
committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. He is a habitual
offender. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition does not
deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have taken the victim along with
him on the evening of 03.03.2022. The dead body of the victim was
recovered on the next day. As per the allegations, he had committed murder
of the victim in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused.
Annexure R-1 is copy of transcript of audio recorded conversation between
the victim, the co-accused Sachin @ Mitha and the petitioner which shows
that just before his homicidal death, he was with the present petitioner. The
allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Eleven out of
twenty one prosecution witnesses have been examined and three witnesses
have been given up. As such, it cannot be said that the trial is not going on at
4 of 5
a proper speed. The well settled proposition of law is that mere prolonged
period of custody is not sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail,
when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to
the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC
(SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1
SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR
(Criminal) 280(SC). Keeping in view the above discussed facts and
circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not
deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.11.2025 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
