Satish Kum h Kumar v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -59480-2024 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 112 Satish Kum h Kumar v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM-M-59480-2024 .2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 &Petitioner. &Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sheoran, Ad ran, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Nahata, Deputy A puty Advocate General, Haryana. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in cas in case FIR No. 175 dated 19.8.202 .8.2021, registered tered against him for offences under under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 20 9, 201, 302, 364 o 364 of Indian Penal Code (challan allan presented under Sections 120 120-B, 201, 302, 3 302, 364, 34 of Indian Penal Code), Code), at Police Station Bhattu Kala Kalan, District Fat ict Fatehabad, has filed the present pe ent petition under Section 483 of BNS f BNSS for grant of rant of bail. Facts 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Present criminal proceedin edings were t initiated against the th petitioner o ner on the complaint dated 19.8.202 .2021 made by one Ajit Singh son son of Hanuman S an Singh, resident of village Dhan hani Kirdhan, District Fatehabad, bad, a student, se t, set criminal law in motion by fil y filing a complaint pointing there herein that on 17 n 17.8.2021, engagement ceremony mony of his sister, who is pursuin rsuing Nursing fro g from PGI, Rohtak, was solemnize nized. This function was attended b ed by GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 2- -2 the relative atives. On the following day, i.e., o .e., on 18.8.2021, his sister and oth other relatives le es left for their respective residenc idences. At about 11 AM, when h en he sought perm permission from his father to leave eave for Hisar, he was told that toda today it is their tu eir turn of water from 8.20 PM to 10 o 10 PM. His father, Hanuman Sing Singh also disclo isclosed that Bhoop Singh and othe others might raise an objection an n and would give give only eight minutes9 time for for irrigating the fields. His fath father raised an an apprehension that aforesaid Bh d Bhoop Singh and others, who a o are short tamp ampered persons might pick up him p him, fight and kill him also. Aft After assuring hi g his father, he (c) left for Hisar. In r. In the morning of 19.8.2021, he g he got a telephoni honic phone of his maternal uncle V Vinod and his brother Naresh Du Dudi who disclo isclosed that in the previous evening
Legal Reasoning
ning, Shri Hanuman Singh (father her of complainan inant) had gone to fields on his mo s motorcycle, when two vehicles cam came from the vi he village side in which Bhoop Sing Singh etc. (in all nine persons) we ) were sitting who who started following Hanuman S an Singh. Bhoop Singh and othe others including S ing Satish son of Balbir Singh (prese resent petitioner) were seen sitting ting in the car. C . Complainant was also told by his y his brother Naresh Dudi that Satis Satish Kumar etc. etc. were seen following Hanuman. man. After about 20-25 minutes whe when Naresh Du Dudi was going towards Fatehaba habad and had crossed Moga No.1 No.10, he saw mo motorcycle of Hanuman on which hich Kassi (spade) was hanging, wa g, was standing th g there. Naresh Dudi probably th ly thought that Hanuman might hav t have gone to the the fields for irrigation. Informant ant also pointed out that dead body ody of Hanuman an is lying in General Hospital, F al, Fatehabad. Several injury mar marks with deadly eadly weapons were also noticed. ed. Rajender son of Balbir Singh, a gh, as per compla mplainant, brought dead body in the n the Government Hospital thinking king it to be a cas case of roadside accident. Howev wever, complainant suspected that that in all probabi bability, his father Shri Hanuman h an has been murdered. Complaina ainant GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 3- -3 in quite cle e clear terms mentioned in the com complaint that Satish Kumar, Bhoo Bhoop Singh etc. etc. including several other perso ersons, after hatching a conspirac iracy, murdered red his father Shri Hanuman a n and, thus, requested the polic police authorities ities to catch hold of all those, who a ho are involved in incident as also lso to initiate ap appropriate proceedings against ainst them. On the basis of sa f said complaint, int, formal case vide FIR No. 1 175 was registered on 19.8.202 .2021 against the t the following 12 persons:- (i) Bhoop Singh (ii) Pardee rdeep (iii) Krishan (iv) Bajrang ( ng (v) Vikram (vi) Chotu Ram (vii) (vii) Vijay @ Molu (viii) Dholu (i lu (ix) Rajender (x) Satish (xi) Jaivir ivir (xii) Sajjan. Investigations were set into m to motion during which post morte ortem examinatio ation was conducted. The Board ard of Doctors who conducted po d post mortem exa examination opined as follows:- <Cause of death in this case i ase in our opinion is hemorrhage an e and shock and injury to vital org l organs i.e. brain, however, viscer iscera sent for chemical analysis, the , the final cause of death will be give given after viscera report.= Present petitioner was arr arrested on 22.8.2021. Durin uring investigatio gation, he confessed to his involvem lvement and got recovered a woode ooden stick used b sed by him in the incident. It is further the case of the pro prosecution that during the course rse of investigatio gation, eight accused out of 12 12 named in the FIR, were foun found innocent. I nt. Investigating Officer, namely, th ly, the then DSP Tohana was of th of the opinion tha n that following four persons were in re involved:- (1) Satish (present petitioner ner (2) Vikram (3) Bhoop Singh an h and (4) Rajender alias Raja). GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 4- -4 Accordingly, Section 34 of Ind f Indian Penal Code was added. On culmination of investigati igation, challan was filed against th st the aforesaid f id four persons under Sections 12 s 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 34 of India Indian Code. Penal Code It can further be inferred that that during the course of prosecutio cution evidence, c ce, complainant while appearing i ng in the witness box also levelle velled allegations tions against those eight persons, ons, who had been let off by th y the Investigatin gating Officer and, thus, an appli pplication under Section 319 of th of the Code of Cr of Criminal Procedure was moved b ved by him to summon to those eig eight persons. S s. Same is still pending adjudication ation before this Court. 3. The petitioner filed an applica pplication for bail under Section 483 o n 483 of BNSS befo before the learned Sessions Judge, udge, Fatehabad. The same came to b e to be dismissed issed vide order dated 12.1.2023. 23. Aggrieved of which, the prese present petition has ion has been filed for grant of bail. Submission issions of Learned Counsel for the r the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the pe the petitioner has raised many fo ny fold submission issions; firstly that the petitioner ha ner has been falsely implicated in th in the present cas nt case only on the basis of hears hearsay evidence. Complainant ha ant had himself not elf not witnessed the incident. Entire f ntire facts were disclosed to him by h by his maternal u rnal uncle Vinod and brother Nare Naresh Dudi, who claimed to hav to have witnessed t essed the incident. Continuing furth further, learned counsel submits th its that even when when the statement of Naresh Dudi, Dudi, as recorded by the Investigatin tigating Officer un er under Section 161 of Code of C e of Criminal Procedure, is careful arefully perused, th sed, the only logical inference that ca that can be drawn is that he was not as not a witness to t ess to the incident. Secondly, the fact t e fact that the Investigating Officer aft cer after thoroughly ughly investigating the matter arrive arrived at a conclusion that out of 1 t of 12 GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 5- -5 persons nam ns named by complainant, 8 were fou ere found innocent, is itself reflective o ctive of the falsity o alsity of the case set up by the prosecu rosecution. The third leg of submissio mission raised by le d by learned counsel for the petitioner tioner is that only with a view to false falsely implicate t icate the petitioner, recovery of 8Dan 8Danda9 was falsely planted on him on him. The case b case being based on purely circumstan umstantial evidence, there is nothing thing to suggest/to d est/to draw inference that deceased wa sed was 8last seen9 alive in the compan ompany of the petit e petitioner, Bhoop Singh etc. Fourt Fourthly, learned counsel submits th its that the examin xamination-in-chief of so called eye w eye witness Naresh Dudi was recorde ecorded in Novemb ovember, 2022, but since then, for , for reasons best known, he has n has not appeared f ared for recording his remaining tes ng testimony. Out of 47 prosecutio secution witnesses, o esses, only 6 have been examined and d and two have been given up. Thus, a Thus, as per learned earned counsel, it is quite evident tha nt that the possibility of completion o etion of trial in the in the near future is quite remote emote. Further, incarceration of th of the petitioner, ioner, in the light of the submission issions advanced hereinabove, as p , as per learned cou ed counsel would not serve any use ny useful purpose. It has, thus, bee s, been prayed that d that a lenient view be taken in fa in favour of the petitioner, who is ho is in custody sin dy since 22.8.2021. Prayer for allowin allowing the petition has been made. Submission issions of Learned State Counsel 5. Status report by way of aff HPS, affidavit of Kulwant Singh, HPS Deputy Su Superintendent of Police (HQ, Cr Crime and Traffic), Fatehabad has been filed filed on behalf of the State. Lea Learned State counsel opposes the application cation for grant of bail on the ground ground that in view of seriousness an and gravity of of the offence, the role played by by the petitioner, his long custody tody by itself canno cannot be a ground to grant him the the concession of bail, for if he (P) (P) is released, there is every likelihood of his his (P) fleeing from the process cess of justice by by not appearing in the Court as also of overawing/influencin uencing GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 6- -6 complainan lainant and other related witnesses. esses. Prayer for dismissal of the ba bail application cation has been made. 6. In view of the submissions adv advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, ioner, the fact that one important pros prosecution witness, namely, Nares Naresh Dudi, who who claims to have witnessed the the incident has not appeared in the witness box box since July 2022 for getting his his remaining statement recorded orded as also that ou out of 47 witnesses only 6 have been examined, as has been right rightly pointed ou out by learned counsel for th the petitioner, the possibility of completion letion of trial in near future is quite quite remote. Thus, further detention ntion of the petition etitioner would not only be violative lative of his rights under Article 21 21 of the Constit onstitution of India, including right right to speedy trial but would also also be against the the principle of <Bail is a gener eneral rule and incarceration is an exception= ion= as held by Hon9ble Supreme Co Court in Dataram vs. State of Utta Uttar Pradesh an and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Cri (Criminal) 131. 7. Resultantly, petitioner is grant s granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furn is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t s to the satisfaction of learned tri ed trial Court/Duty t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The The petitioner shall abide by by the following c wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate the th prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no l not leave the country without prio prior urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic which he is suspected of. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -59480-2024 7- -7 (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th ith the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi obile number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam same shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any oth other condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing the th petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order. 9.
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 14.10.2025 gbs (AARADHNA SAWHNEY NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document