[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul @ Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128
CRM-M-45715
45715-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Rahul @ Deepak ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr.. Ashish Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana with
ASI Tarun, P.S. Pataudi, Gurugram (through V.C.).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)
The instant first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.191 dated 23.05.2021 registered under
Sections 308, 34 (Section 308, 34 were deleted and Sections 307, 302, 379,
201, 204, 120-B were added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Pataudi District Gurugram.
2. The FIR in the present case is registered on the statement of
Santosh Devi, wife of Jeetpal Singh, resident of Village Nanu Kalan, Police
Station Pataudi, District Gurugram. The same reads thus:
"...I
...I, Santosh Devi W/O Jeetpal Singh am resident of Village
Nanu Kalan Police Station Pataudi District Gurgaon. I do
domestic work and I have 2 sons and 2 daughters. Both my
daughters are elder and both are married and younger to both of
them is my son Rahul who is married and has a 7 months old son.
He drives his own taxi and left from home at about 6:00 AM on
15.05.2021 by saying that I am going to purchase tractor trolley.
128 CRM-M-45715-2025(O&M)
After this I contacted my son Rahul at about 12:30 PM (day) to
ask about where he is returning, to which he replied that he was
with Ghanti @ Dharmender S/O Satish, Harvinder @ Harkesh
S/O Chitarpal and Rahul @ Deepak S/O Shiv Kumar @ Sonarain
and will come home in one hour and also made me talk to Ghanti.
After this I made many calls to my son Rahul but found the phone
of my son switched off and that my son did not come home till
evening. Then, I searched for my son with my family members all
night and he was not found anywhere. After this we came to police
station on 16.05.21 to give information about missing of my son,
then we came to know that Rahul was lying unconscious in an
empty field behind the wall behind Ratra Farm House on
Kapdiwas Road. That on receiving the information, we reached
the spot and took and admitted my son Rahul in Aditya PTO
Hospital for treatment where he is undergoing treatment. That
when I saw the condition of my son, there were blue marks on his
neck which seemed as if these above mentioned three boys had
beaten and strangled him. Due to which my son Rahul is still in an
unconscious state. Legal action be taken against these three. That
till now we have been getting the information on our own. That
these above mentioned three boys have committed this incident
upon my son. Legal action be taken against these three."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2021 and only 23 witnesses out of
38 witnesses have been examined so far. There are thus 15 witnesses yet to be
examined despite actual custody of nearly 04 years and 10 months. He further
128 CRM-M-45715-2025(O&M)
contends that the present case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and on
the statement of the complainant to the effect that during her telephonic
conversation with her deceased son-Rahul, who had informed her that he was
with the petitioner and the other co-accused. He contends that apart from the
above bald statement, the only recovery which has allegedly been effected from
the petitioner is one screen of the mobile phone of the deceased (which is stated
to have been broken and thrown away by the accused persons). He further
contends that the other evidence relied upon by the respondents for establishing
the case against the petitioner is some CCTV footage, which was exhibited as
P-14, however, when the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-3 Ashwani Kumar
appeared as a prosecution witness, the said pendrive Exh.P14 did not play. He
also contends that the allegation against the petitioner of having used the
mobile of the deceased for making of UPI payment has not been established
through any cogent evidence. He also submits that the petitioner has clean
antecedents and that except for one case under Section 304-A IPC, he has never
been involved in any other case.
4. Learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant
contend that the petitioner has participated in the commission of the offence.
The petitioner, in conspiracy with the other co-accused, first got the victim-
deceased intoxicated and thereafter assaulted and strangulated him with the aid
of a towel and left him in the fields assuming him to be dead. It is further
alleged that the petitioner had taken the mobile phone of the deceased and fled
from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, a withdrawal of approximately
Rs.9,600/- was made at a petrol pump and that a CCTV footage from the same
was also obtained. Counsel for the respondents/State as well as complainant are
not in a position to dispute that as per the order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the
128 CRM-M-45715-2025(O&M)
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, the said pendrive Exh.P14 containing
the CCTV footage did not play during the examination-in-chief of PW-3
Ashwani Kumar.
5. A further question was put to the counsel for the respondents as to
in whose's account the UPI payment was made to the extent of Rs.9,600/- and
approximately Rs.9,000/- had been received, counsel are not in a position to
answer the same. They however do not dispute that the only recovery that has
been effected from the petitioner is the screen of a broken mobile phone stated
to be belonging to deceased-Rahul.
6. A further question is also put to counsel for the respondents as to
how and on what basis the screen recovered from the petitioner has been
conclusively determined to be that of the phone of the deceased-Rahul. They
are not in a position to respond to the same. The period of custody which is
nearly 04 years and 10 months is also not disputed.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present
petition.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into
consideration the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner i.e.
nearly 04 years and 10 months, the stage of trial where 15 witnesses are still to
be examined by the prosecution, the nature of recovery from the petitioner as
well as arguable issues about participation of the petitioner, I deem it
appropriate to allow the present petition.
9. The instant petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail
128 CRM-M-45715-2025(O&M)
bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and
shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or
indirectly.
11. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on
the basis of available material.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
16.03.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
Sumit Gusain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
