Allowed¶31

Akash v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRM-M/24390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-24390-2025 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; 05.09.2025; regular bail; Section 302 IPC; FIR No. 188 dated 13.06.2023; PS Sector 31 Faridabad; strangulation; ligature mark; MLR; Hotel The Limestone; Nitesh Kumari; custody 2 years 2 months 20 days; 6 of 35 witnesses examined; no criminal antecedents; no threat/influence to witnesses; Section 161 CrPC; Section 173 CrPC chargesheet.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the condition that he shall not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. ¶31

Akash Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 188 dated 13.06.2023 (murder by strangulation of Nitesh Kumari), having undergone actual custody of over two years with the trial at an early stage (6 of 35 witnesses examined) and lacking criminal antecedents, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶18

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the actual period of custody of 02 years, 02 months and 20 days, the stage of trial, the age of the petitioner and his lack of criminal antecedents, the Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was held entitled to be enlarged on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶30

Key takeaways

The petition was allowed and the petitioner ordered released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.ratio¶31
As a condition, the petitioner shall not extend any threat to, and shall not influence, any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.ratio¶32
The observations in the order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material (merits expressly left open).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted under S.302 IPC (murder by strangulation of Nitesh Kumari at Hotel The Limestone, Faridabad; FIR No. 188 dated 13.06.2023, PS Sector 31, Faridabad). Held (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral): considering actual custody of 02 years, 02 months and 20 days, early stage of trial (only 06 of 35 witnesses examined), the age of the petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents, petitioner enlarged on regular bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, with an express condition against threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses; observations not to be read as an expression on merits, which the Trial Court shall decide on available material. Defence had urged MLR showing no external head/face injury save a ligature mark and a failed-suicide-attempt theory; State counsel did not dispute the facts.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

105+202

¶3

CRM-M-24390-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2025

AKASH

......Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

.......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶10

*********

¶11

Present: - Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ved Parkash, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶15

CRM-35653-2025

¶16

Application is allowed as prayed for and Annexures P-10 to P-13 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

CRM-M-24390-2025

¶18

The instant petition is for seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 188 dated 13.06.2023 registered under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

¶19

The present First Information Report was lodged on the complaint of Ved Parkash Singh, son of Prem Pal Singh. The substance of VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.05 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CRM-M-24390-2025 (O&M)

¶22

the allegations is that on 13.06.2023, the accused, Akash, enticed the complainant’s sister, Nitesh Kumari, to Hotel The Limestone, situated in the DLF Industrial Area. It is alleged that within the said premises, the accused caused her death by strangulation coupled with physical assault. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant sought initiation of criminal proceedings, whereupon the instant FIR was registered. In the course of investigation, the accused–applicant Akash was apprehended on 14.06.2023. His disclosure statement was recorded, and in pursuance thereof, he conducted a nishandehi of the place of occurrence and further pointed out the shop from which the rope, allegedly employed in the commission of the crime, had been procured. Statements of relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Additionally, the call detail records of the accused–applicant as well as of the deceased were obtained. Upon culmination of the investigation, a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the aforesaid case under Section 302 had been recorded against the petitioner on the allegation that there were injuries on the head and face of the deceased-Nitesh Kumari. He refers to the MLR which shows that there is no mark of any external injury on the head and face of the deceased and there was only a ligature mark. He contends that the petitioner as well as the deceased had checked in to the same hotel room. He submits that there were

¶24

no injuries other than the ligature marks/strangulation marks on the body of VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.05 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

-3-

¶26

CRM-M-24390-2025 (O&M)

¶27

the deceased and the similar injury was also found on the body of the petitioner. Hence, it is a case of failed suicide attempt by the petitioner alongwith deceased Nitesh Kumari. He submits that the petitioner was taken in custody on 13.06.2023 and has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years. Only 06 witnesses have been examined out of the total 35 witnesses and the trial is likely to take long time.

¶28

Counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

¶30

In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration the actual period of custody of 02 years, 02 months and 20 days, the stage of trial and bearing in mind the age of the petitioner and lack of any criminal antecedents, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶31

The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶32

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶33

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.05 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

-4-

¶35

CRM-M-24390-2025 (O&M)

¶36

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

¶37

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) SEPTEMBER 05, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma

¶38

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶39

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.05 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Akash v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs M/S Yire Trade Trhough Its Partners

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana and Another

Alisha Deshwal Vs Nawal Singh

Narayan Alias Nitin and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaswinder Singh Vs Deepak Ahuja