[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep @ Mangtu vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

           CRM-M-9297-202
                      2026 (O&M)                                     1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH


                                                                         CRM-M-9297-2026 (O&M)
           SANDEEP @ MANGTU
                                                                                           ...
                                                                                            .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

           STATE OF HARYANA                                                           ...Respondent
           1                    The date when the judgment is reserved              27.04.2026
           2                    The date when the judgment is pronounced            29.04.2026
           3                    The date when the judgment is uploaded on the       29.04.2026
                                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:                 Mr.
                                     r. N.K. Chhokar, Advocate
                                                       dvocate for the petitioner

                                    Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

                                                            ****

           MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.116 116 dated 23.02.2022

registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 and 120B of IPC at Police Station

Gannaur, District Sonipat.

2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 364

read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the

complainant Raj Kumar alleging therein that his brother Anil was having love

integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-9297-202

affair with a co--villager villager Nirmala wife of Ram Niwas. The family members of

Nirmala had come to know about this fact. He alleged that on the noon of

17.02.2022, the petitioner alongwith the co co-accused ccused in pursuance of a

conspiracy and with intent to eliminate his brother Anil Anil, had abducted him and

had taken him somewhere. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings

were initiated. On 23.02.2022, the accused Rakesh son of Nirmala was arrested..

On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement about hatching a conspiracy

with the co-accused accused to eliminate him since he had defamed his family by

harassing his mother Nirmala and also disclosed that in pursuance of that

conspiracy the victim had had been called by his mother at the bus bus-stop stop of his

Village on the noon of 17.02.2022 and then all of them had abducted him, had

taken him to Kaliana canal and after alighting him from his vehicle, had inflicted

injuries ies on his person with batons and knives, knive , thereby causing his death. He

further disclosed that to destroy the evidence of offence they ha had removed the

clothing of the victim, had thrown the same in the canal and had set the dead

body on fire. He also disclosed about dismantling the vehicle of the victim in

different parts and selling the same to co-accused co accused Ravi. The accused Rakesh

also demarcated the place where the dead body of the victim was thrown and got

recovered the vehicle used by him in the crime.

3. As per the further allegations, the the dead body of the victim had been

recovered from the canal in the area of Police Station Bawana, Delhi. The same

was kept in the mortuary and had been identified by the family members of the

victim. Several injuries were found on the dead body. The pe petitioner titioner alongwith

the co-accused accused Ravi, Himanshu, Ankit and Manjeet were arrested on

integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-9297-202

23.02.2022. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in

the crime. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to him. The

co-accused accused Rajesh Kumar, Manjeet, Ankit and Ravi have been extended benefit

of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit benefit.. He is in

custody continuously for a period of more than 4 years. The trial will take

considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining

him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. His prolonged

incarceration militates militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article

21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves

to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State

counsel has argued that that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who

in connivance with the co-accused co accused had abducted the victim and had killed him

by causing injuries on his person. The dead body of the victim was thereafter

burnt, so as to cause disappearance of evidence evidence of offence of murder. The trial

is going at a proper pace. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to

be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-9297-202

7. Thee petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 04 years and

02 months. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye eye--

witness to the occurrence. The allegations as against the petitioner are that he

alongwith the co-accused co hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of the

victim. The co--accused accused Rajesh Kumar, Manjeet, Ankit and Ravi have been

extended benefit of bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. On parity, the

petitioner too deserves to be extended the same benefit. The tri trial al is not likely to

be concluded in the near future as only 19 out of 32 prosecution witnesses have

been examined so far. As such further incarceration of the petitioner would be

violative of his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution tution of India. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the

petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to

his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned

Trial Court/Chief ief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the

following conditions :-

:

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any

manner whatsoever.