Rohit vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 317 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 317 P&H
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rohit vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 January, 2026

                                                                           1

CRA-
CRA-S-47-
      47-2026




205
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                CRA-  47-2026
                                CRA-S-47-

Rohit
                                                                ....Appellant
                                                                  Appellant
                                     Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                              ....Respondentss

Date of Decision: January 16, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 16, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the appellant.

             Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

             Ms. Riya Kohli, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                      *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A A of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short 'SC/ST Act') for grant of regular bail to the appellant, in case

bearing FIR No.0023 No. dated 11.02.2025,, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for

short' BNS') (Sections 238 (a), 3(5), 351(3), 61(2) 61(2)A, 49 of the BNS and

Section 3(2)V V of the SC/ST Act, 1985 added later on) on), at Police Station

Pillukhera, District D - Jind.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant,

namely, Rajbir, son of Kaliya, resident of Village Morkhi, District Jind,

stated that he is a permanent resident of Morkhi and works as a labourer. He

1 of 5

CRA-

CRA-S-47- 47-2026

has three children -- his eldest daughter Manisha, who is married; his

second child Rahul, aged 22 years; and his youngest son Rohit (petitioner

herein), aged 20 years. He stated that the marriage of his son Rahul was

solemnized with Aarti, daughter of Balu, resident of Village Khandrai,

Gohana, District Sonepat. On 10.02.2025, Rahul consumed alcohol and

charas (sulpha), which led to a quarrel between him and his wife. Following

the quarrel, Aarti left the house along with her mother. Thereafter, Rahul did

not return home. Despite extensive searches made by the family, he could

not be found. In the morning, Rajbir received information that a body was

seen floating in a nearby drain. He, along with his family members,

immediately went to the spot and found several respectable persons of the

village already present there. The police were informed about the incident,

and upon their arrival, the dead body was taken out from the drain. The

deceased was identified as Rahul, son of the complainant. It was observed

that Rahul had sustained injuries on his head, which appeared to be the cause

of his death. Rajbir suspects that some unknown person inflicted the fatal

injury on his son.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has iterated that the appellant

is in custody since 15.02.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further iterated that the case in hand is one of circumstantial

evidence. Learned counsel has iterated that prosecution witness, namely

PW-1 - Rajbir (FIR/complainant) as also another witness, namely, PW-2 -

Suresh have turned hostile; thus, the case in hand is not likely to be

culminated into conviction. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

2 of 5

CRA-

CRA-S-47- 47-2026

4. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent

No.2 have opposed the present appeal by arguing that the allegations raised

against the appellant are serious in nature and, thus, the appellant does not

deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned counsel for respondent

No.2 has further argued that, in case, the appellant is released on bail, there

is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also

interfere with the prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel seeks to place

on record the custody certificate dated 15.01.2026, in the Court today, which

is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The appellant was arrested on 15.02.2025 whereinafter,

investigation was carried out and challan qua the appellant has been

presented on 03.05.2025. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited,

out of which, only 03 have been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable

that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised

at Bar; including weightage required to be attached to the hostile witnesses;

shall 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 appellant absconding from the process of

justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 15.01.2026 filed by learned

State counsel, the appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period of

11 months. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated

to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground

3 of 5

CRA-

CRA-S-47- 47-2026

sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the appellant

in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua

the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said

FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

State Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. St ate of U.P. and

another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled

as Akhilesh Singh v. State State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v.

State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the appellant as an undertrial

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed. Appellant 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 appellant shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The appellant shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The appellant shall give his cellphone 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.