Yupender Alias Yupendra Singh vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 3916 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Yupender Alias Yupendra Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.22712 of 2026 (O&M)                          1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           235                                             CRM-M No.22712 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                           Date of Decision: 29.04.2026

           Yupender @ Yupendra Singh

                                                                              ......Petitioner
                                                  Versus

           State of Haryana
                                                                              ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains

to a case arising out of FIR No.156 dated 28.04.2025, 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' [Sections 346, 120-B, 201, 302, 404 and 34

of IPC], and Section 25(1-B)(a) & 27/29 of Arms Act, Police Station Sampla,

District Rohtak.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case 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 killa to 'Deepanshu' and for the above said 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 got missing. By virtue of above mentioned complaint the

complainant requested for the search of his missing brother.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on basis of above mentioned

statement formal FIR of this case was lodged on 28.04.2025, for the

commission of offence punishable under Section 127(6) of 'Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita 2023', hereinafter being referred to as 'BNS' only. 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 came to know that 'Sumit' and 'Bhupender' used to visit

his brother, and that they might have killed his brother and disposed of his

dead body for grabbing the money, received as sale consideration on the sale of

land i.e. Rs.1,30,00,000/-.

4. According to prosecution in view of above mentioned suspicion

'Sumit' and 'Bhupender' were interrogated and they suffered a disclosure

statement, pursuant to which the dead body of 'Ajay', buried by them, was

recovered. It is the 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 the

deceased 'Ajay'.

5. As per prosecution in the above mentioned disclosure statement

the accused 'Bhupender' nominated 'Irfan' as co-accused and 'Irfan' was

arrested and on interrogation he suffered a disclosure statement, pursuant to

which spade (kassi), which was used to bury the dead body of 'Ajay' was

recovered.

6. The prosecution has further alleged that on 28.06.2025 the

accused 'Sumit' was interrogated and he suffered a disclosure statement,

pursuant to which a pistol, a cartridge and currency notes of Rs.7,00,000/-

were recovered and in his disclosure statement the name of another accused

namely 'Bablu' cropped-up, who, too, was joined in the investigation and he

suffered a disclosure statement.

7. According to prosecution in view of his disclosure statement the

accused 'Bablu' identified the spots where victim 'Ajay' was killed, and also

the spot where his dead body was buried. The prosecution has alleged that

from the possession of accused 'Bablu' Rs.1,70,000/- was recovered.

8. Notice of motion.

9. Since advance notice has already been served, Ms. Deepali

Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence,

service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State

Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on

record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned

State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

10. Heard.

11. The record has been perused carefully.

12. A perusal of record shows that the entire prosecution case is based

upon the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused 'Bhupender', 'Sumit'

and 'Himanshu'. The disclosure statement of 'Bhupender' and 'Sumit' reveals

that in the commission of offence of murder of 'Ajay' four persons namely

'Bhupender', 'Sumit', 'Irfan' and 'Bablu' were involved. The only role

attributed to the petitioner is that he sold weapons to the assailants. There is

nothing on record to show that either in the conspiracy or in the preparation or

at the time of commission of offence there was any involvement of the

petitioner.

13. In view of above, it is hereby observed that following are the

relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision

in the present petition:-

i) that prima facie, there is no direct nexus of the petitioner with the commission of crime, and the only link, between the commission of crime and the petitioner, is that, he allegedly sold the weapons to the assailants;

ii) that the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when he was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iii) that no weapon of offence or any other evidence has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost seven months;

v) that the investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of the

petitioner;

vi) that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lock up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence, or influence the witnesses;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

14. 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) 3 SCC 22, are 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".

15. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(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".

16. 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".

17. 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,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as

mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab

and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

18. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

19. 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 abovesaid benefit 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 from disclosing 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 trial Court.

20. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove

is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have

no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

29.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No