Khetu Ram v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M No.51393 of 2025 -1- 253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.51393 of 2025 Date of decision : 17.09.2025 Khetu @ Khetu Ram versus State of Haryana .....Petitioner ..... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Ajay Kripal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.37, dated 09.02.2024, under Section 365 of IPC (Sections 364-A, 201, 34, 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Rakesh. It was alleged that his nephew, namely, Raghav, was of the age of 12 years and was studying in Vidya Silam School, Hansi Road. He used to go to school daily on cycle. However on 09.02.2024, he went to school and after school, he used to go to coaching from 04:00 P.M. to 05:00 P.M. His friend RITTU 2025.09.18 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.51393 of 2025 -2- Keshav came to the house with the bag of Raghav and informed that Raghav was not present at the shop. The family members being apprehensive, started searching for Raghav, but he could not be traced. They came to know that Raghav was kidnapped in an Ertiga car and was taken towards the village Ratera. The request was made to trace out/search Raghav and take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, child, namely, Raghav was recovered on 12.02.2024 from the custody of accused, namely, Khetu (petitioner), Vir Singh @ Lekhu and others. However, the petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M-62300-2024, however the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.01.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court again by way of filing the present second petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor he was attributed any overt act, however he has been implicated in the present case during the investigation. He has submitted that the victim child has been examined by the trial Court as PW-5 and all the accused persons were shown to the victim child in Court through video conferencing but he refused to identify any of RITTU 2025.09.18 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.51393 of 2025 -3- the accused and thus on the request of the Public Prosecutor, he was declared hostile. He has submitted that false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e., 07.03.2024 and has completed incarceration about 01 year and 06 months. He has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Rohit and Sudarshan @ Sandeep have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2025 and 22.08.2025 passed in CRM-M- 57158-2024 and CRM-M-36849-2025 and thus, case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances when the co-accused have already on bail, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that complicity of the petitioner was established during the investigation. She has submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. She has submitted that as per the recovery memo, the child has been recovered from the custody of petitioner along with co-accused. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner dated 16.09.2025 today in the Court and the same is taken on record. She has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case. She has endorsed the fact that co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2025 & 22.08.2025. 5. 6. Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that complicity of the petitioner in the present case was surfaced during the investigation wherein it was alleged that he carried RITTU 2025.09.18 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.51393 of 2025 -4- out the recce. The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2024 and since then, he is behind bars. As per the custody certificate of the petitioner, he has completed incarceration of 01 year, 06 months and 06 days as on 16.09.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case. Co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2025 and 22.08.2025. 7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. 8. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail on parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case. 17.09.2025 rittu (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RITTU 2025.09.18 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document