Dismissed

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2023CRM-M/13875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a regular bail petition filed by Mukesh in a murder case. Citings the gravity of the offence and the alleged conspiracy in the husband's murder, the Court denied bail despite the petitioner's four-year imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Bail to the petitioner denied; the petition is dismissed; trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Mukesh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023: PHHC: 141141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

¶2

CRM-M-13875-2023 Reserved on: 02.11.2023 Pronounced on: 06.11.2023

MUKESH

Vs.

State of Haryana

. . . . Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

¶11

Present: - Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Anoop Singh Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶16

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.198 dated 08.07.2019 registered under Sections 346 of IPC (Sections 120B, 201, 302/34 IPC added later on) at Police Station Industrial Sector 7, Manesar, District Gurugram.

¶17

FIR was lodged on the complaint of Jai Bhagwan, father of the deceased Satya Narayan. A per the complaint, Jai Bhagwan was habitual of drinking. He left home on 07.07.2019 without intimating the family members at about 4.00 PM. Report to trace him was lodged under Section 346 CrPC. On 09.07.2019, dead body of Satya Narayan was found. During investigation, co-accused Gajender was implicated. He got recovered mobile phone. It was found during investigation that petitioner Mukesh, who is the wife of deceased Satya Narayan, was

¶18

VIVEK PAHWA 2023.11.06 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-13875-2023

¶20

2023: PHHC: 141141

¶21

having illicit relations with co-accused Gajender and conspired with him to commit the murder.

¶22

It is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated; that case is based upon circumstantial evidence particularly disclosure statement, which is not admissible; that petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 years; that petitioner is not involved in any other case; and that in all these circumstances, she be allowed regular bail.

¶23

Strongly opposing the bail petition, ld. State counsel has drawn attention towards call detail records pertaining to the mobile of the petitioner and that of the co-accused Gajender to stress his point that both of them were in illicit relationship and used to converse even in the late hours of the night. Particular attention is drawn towards the fact that on the night intervening 7/8.07.2019, when the deceased had left home, the petitioner and the co-accused Gajender were in continuous touch with each other from 08:23 PM onwards till 12:49 AM in the night time. Ld. State counsel further submits that out of 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 12 have already been examined and one has been given up and that prosecution is making sincere efforts to conclude the trial. Prayer is made for rejecting the petition.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

As per the custody certificate placed on record, petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2019 i.e., for the last 4 years and 2 months. At the same time, the gravity of offence and the role attributed to the petitioner cannot be ignored by this Court to the effect that instead of providing

¶26

VIVEK PAHWA 2023.11.06 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

CRM-M-13875-2023

¶29

2023: PHHC: 141141

¶30

any protection to her husband, she became part of conspiracy with her alleged paramour in committing the murder of Satya Narayan.

¶31

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, the petition is dismissed. However, at the same time, trial Court is directed to make every possible efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously keeping in view the custody

¶32

period of the petitioner.

¶33

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶34

��.11.2023 �� 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes 2. Whether reportable? No

¶35

VIVEK PAHWA 2023.11.06 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Aamir Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Kumar Alias Bugga Vs State of Punjab

Kanta and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Sneh Lata and Anr. Vs State of Haryana