The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-29292-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29292-2025 Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Pronounced on: 24.07.2025 Sonika Yadav and another State of Haryana Versus ...Petitioners …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Dhruv Trehan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Trishanjali, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Vibhuti Narania, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 77 29.03.2025 Pataudi, Gurugram 3(5) and 108 BNS (Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS added later on) 1. The petitioners incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. As per paragraph 23 of the bail petition, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State in connected petition i.e. CRM-M-20605-2025, which reads as follows: “3. That the brief facts of the present case are that on 28.03.2025, ASI Narender Kumar received information that one person had consumed poison (sulphas) at Khandewla mor and was being taken to Government Hospital, Pataudi. Upon receipt of this information, ASI Narender Kumar along with other police officials proceeded to the hospital in a government vehicle bearing registration number HR-26-GV-3530. At the hospital, they met the family members and relatives of Ved Prakash. In the emergency room, Dr. Gauray Dhillon was attending to Ved Prakash. Dr. Dhillon instructed the police to call a Duty Magistrate to record the statement of the patient. ASI Narender Kumar attempted to contact the BDPO, but was unable to reach him. The doctor then said that the statement could be recorded in his presence. Balkishan Yadav, a relative of Ved Prakash, was called in the emergency room. In the presence of Dr. Gaurav Dhillon and Balkishan, ASI Narender Kumar recorded the statement of Ved Prakash. Ved Prakash stated that Devender, Bhupesh (son of Devender), daughter-in- law Sonika, Sonika's father, and Devinder's younger son-in-law Akash, had conspired together and sold his (Ved Parkash's) land without his consent. He had constructed and was living in a house on the said land. He further JYOTI 2025.07.25 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-29292-2025 stated that his relative (samadhi of deceased) Raj Kumar, who is also Devinder’s brother-in-law emotionally blackmailed him into vacating the house by promising that his share of money from the sale of land would be given to him by 25.03.2025. However, no money was received. Bhupesh had gone with Rs.25,00,000/- for giving to Raj Kumar, but the amount was not acceptable to Ved Prakash as it was insufficient even for the house. Therefore, he refused to accept it. Ved Prakash further stated that he had submitted a written complaint on 05.03.2025 to SDM Manesar, SDM Pataudi, and DCP Manesar, but no action was taken. He further mentioned that on 18.03.2025, he was called by ASI Surender to Police Post Haily Mandi, where ASI Pradeep recorded his statement. However, no progress was made. Ved Prakash stated that he had lost hope of getting justice. Fed up with the above-named individuals, he consumed poison. He stated that he and his children had been forced to live in rented accommodation after being evicted from their home. He held the named persons responsible for his condition and wished that his statement be recorded by the SDM. After his statement was recorded, Ved Prakash signed it in English. He was referred for further treatment to Gurugram. However, another information was received that Ved Prakash has died at Artemis Hospital, Gurugram. Thereupon, the above mentioned FIR No.77 dated 29.03.2025 u/s 108, 3(5) BNS (Later on added Section 316(2), 318 (4) BNS) was registered at P.S. Pataudi, Gurugram.” 4. The petitioners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family. 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioners shall have no objection. 6. 7. Counsel for the complainant opposes bail. The State’s counsel opposes bail on the grounds of instigation and abetment to commit suicide. REASONING: 8. In the present case, there had been some evidence, the gravity of offence would have been made, it’s a case where the bail would even unjustified. But the facts mentioned above, and the role of the petitioners does not point out that the petitioners had knowledge of the consequences or he had the intention to instigate the deceased and had abetted him to commit suicide. 9. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged JYOTI 2025.07.25 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-29292-2025 crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the petitioners have been in custody since 23.04.2025. As per the same, the petitioners’ total custody in this FIR is around three months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for bail. 11. Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. This order is subject to the petitioners’ complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioners shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioners another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioners also abides by the assurance made on the petitioners’ behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 16. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to JYOTI 2025.07.25 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-29292-2025 revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 19. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.07.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2025.07.25 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4