High Court

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged by the police personnel against applicant with the allegation that he committed the murder of his own son but entire allegation levelled against him is totally false.

4. He further submits that actually applicant is the father of the deceased and when he found on 21.09.2024 in the morning that his son has died then he immediately informed the police on the same day and information given by him has been annexed at page 25 of the paper book.

5. He further submits that after receiving information given by the applicant, inquest proceeding was conducted and during inquest, applicant was also present and he was one of the inquest witness but after two days, police personnel lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant.

6. He further submits that it reflects, post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to strangulation and some neighbours of the applicant also stated against him to the police, therefore, local police lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant.

7. He further submits that from the statements of the neighbours, which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it could not be reflected that they were the eye-witnesses and they only stated that the son of the applicant came under intoxication and he started abusing the applicant and thereafter both were started making assault upon each other in which deceased died.

8. He further submits that applicant is 44% disabled person and he is unable to do his routine work from his right hand and therefore, it was almost impossible for him to strangulate his son, who was 22 years of age.

9. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is father of the deceased and dead-body of the deceased was found in his home and as per post-mortem report, he died due to strangulation and number of neighbours of the applicant also stated against him but learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that applicant is 44% disabled person from his right hand and deceased was 22 years old young man.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that on the information given by the applicant with regard to the death of his son inquest was conducted and in the inquest, applicant was also one of the panch witness.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that however, neightbours of the applicant stated against him but it could not be reflected that they were eye-witnesses.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is father of the deceased and as per allegation, he committed the murder of his son by strangulating him but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after two days by the police personnel and before lodgement of the FIR, information with regard to the death of the deceased was himself given by the applicant to the police and on his information, inquest was conducted, in which, he was also one of the panch witness, therefore, this fact shows his bona-fide.

15. Further, however, as per the neighbours of the applicant, on the date of incident, deceased came under intoxication and thereafter he started abusing the applicant and some dispute arose between both of them and thereafter during fighting/assault, deceased died but from their statements, it cold not be reflected that they were the eye-witnesses.

16. Further, applicant is 44% disabled person from his right hand and deceased was 22 years old young man. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it was almost impossible for the applicant to strangulate his son, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ranjeet Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Zafar

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged by the police personnel against applicant with the allegation that he committed the murder of his own son but entire allegation levelled against him is totally false.

4. He further submits that actually applicant is the father of the deceased and when he found on 21.09.2024 in the morning that his son has died then he immediately informed the police on the same day and information given by him has been annexed at page 25 of the paper book.

5. He further submits that after receiving information given by the applicant, inquest proceeding was conducted and during inquest, applicant was also present and he was one of the inquest witness but after two days, police personnel lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant.

6. He further submits that it reflects, post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to strangulation and some neighbours of the applicant also stated against him to the police, therefore, local police lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant.

7. He further submits that from the statements of the neighbours, which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it could not be reflected that they were the eye-witnesses and they only stated that the son of the applicant came under intoxication and he started abusing the applicant and thereafter both were started making assault upon each other in which deceased died.

8. He further submits that applicant is 44% disabled person and he is unable to do his routine work from his right hand and therefore, it was almost impossible for him to strangulate his son, who was 22 years of age.

9. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is father of the deceased and dead-body of the deceased was found in his home and as per post-mortem report, he died due to strangulation and number of neighbours of the applicant also stated against him but learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that applicant is 44% disabled person from his right hand and deceased was 22 years old young man.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that on the information given by the applicant with regard to the death of his son inquest was conducted and in the inquest, applicant was also one of the panch witness.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that however, neightbours of the applicant stated against him but it could not be reflected that they were eye-witnesses.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, applicant is father of the deceased and as per allegation, he committed the murder of his son by strangulating him but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after two days by the police personnel and before lodgement of the FIR, information with regard to the death of the deceased was himself given by the applicant to the police and on his information, inquest was conducted, in which, he was also one of the panch witness, therefore, this fact shows his bona-fide.

15. Further, however, as per the neighbours of the applicant, on the date of incident, deceased came under intoxication and thereafter he started abusing the applicant and some dispute arose between both of them and thereafter during fighting/assault, deceased died but from their statements, it cold not be reflected that they were the eye-witnesses.

16. Further, applicant is 44% disabled person from his right hand and deceased was 22 years old young man. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it was almost impossible for the applicant to strangulate his son, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ranjeet Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Zafar