Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; not leaving the country without prior permission of the trial Court; not committing a similar offence; no coercion/inducement of persons acquainted with the facts; no misuse of liberty; furnishing address and mobile number forthwith and not changing them without prior intimation; appearance on each and every date fixed unless exempted; trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose further conditions; State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether Satish Kumar, accused in FIR No. 175 dated 19.8.2021 (Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad) for offences under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 34 IPC and in custody since 22.8.2021, is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the enumerated conditions (paras 40-46), with liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail on breach.

Ratio / Principle

Since material prosecution witness Naresh Dudi has not appeared in the witness box since July 2022 and only 6 of 47 witnesses have been examined, the possibility of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote; therefore further detention of the petitioner would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to speedy trial.

Key takeaways

Further detention would also be against the principle that 'Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.ratio¶38
The observations made in the order are limited to the present (bail) proceedings and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case; the trial will proceed independently.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Section 483 BNSS - Delayed trial - Custody since 22.8.2021. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition of Satish Kumar, accused in FIR No. 175 dated 19.8.2021 (P.S. Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad) under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 34 IPC arising from the alleged conspiracy-murder of Hanuman Singh; challan was filed against only four of the twelve originally named accused, and the petitioner's bail plea had been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on 12.1.2023. Observing that key prosecution witness Naresh Dudi had not appeared in the witness box since July 2022 and that only 6 of 47 prosecution witnesses had been examined (two given up), the Court held that completion of trial in the near future was remote; continued detention would violate Article 21 (right to speedy trial) and run counter to the principle in Dataram (Supreme Court) that bail is the general rule and incarceration an exception. Bail was granted with nine conditions (including no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, no departure from India without leave, and furnishing of address/contact number); the State retains liberty to seek cancellation upon breach. Observations are confined to the bail proceedings and express no opinion on merits.

CRM-M-59480-2024 -1-

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

112 CRM-M-59480-2024 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

Satish K u mar &Petitioner. v. State of H aryana &Respondent.

CORAM: HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sheoran, A dvocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Nahata, Deputy A dvocate General, Haryana.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

Petitioner, an accused in c a se FIR No. 175 dated 19.8.2 0 21, registere d against him for offences und e r Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 2 01, 302, 364 of Indian Penal Code (challa n presented under Sections 12 0 -B, 201, 302 , 364, 34 of Indian Penal Cod e ), at Police Station Bhattu Ka l an, District Fatehabad, has filed the present p etition under Section 483 of B N SS for grant o f bail.

Facts

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

Present criminal proceed i ngs were initiated against the petitione r on the complaint dated 19.8.2 0 21 made by one Ajit Singh so n of Hanuma n Singh, resident of village Dh a ni Kirdhan, District Fatehaba d , a student, s et criminal law in motion by f iling a complaint pointing the r ein that on 1 7.8.2021, engagement ceremo n y of his sister, who is purs u ing Nursing f rom PGI, Rohtak, was solemni z ed. This function was attende d by

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-59480-2024 -2-

the relati v es. On the following day, i.e., on 18.8.2021, his sister and o t her relatives left for their respective reside n ces. At about 11 AM, when he sought p e rmission from his father to lea v e for Hisar, he was told that to d ay it is their turn of water from 8.20 PM to 1 0 PM. His father, Hanuman Si n gh also disc l osed that Bhoop Singh and ot h ers might raise an objection a nd would gi v e only eight minutes9 time fo r irrigating the fields. His fa t her raised a n apprehension that aforesaid B hoop Singh and others, who are short ta m pered persons might pick up h im, fight and kill him also. A f ter assuring h is father, he (c) left for Hisar. I n the morning of 19.8.2021, he got a telepho n ic phone of his maternal uncle Vinod and his brother Naresh D udi who disc l osed that in the previous eveni n g, Shri Hanuman Singh (fathe r of complain a nt) had gone to fields on his m otorcycle, when two vehicles c a me from the village side in which Bhoop Si n gh etc. (in all nine persons) w ere sitting w h o started following Hanuman Singh. Bhoop Singh and ot h ers including Satish son of Balbir Singh (pre s ent petitioner) were seen sittin g in the car. C omplainant was also told by h is brother Naresh Dudi that Sa t ish Kumar et c . were seen following Hanuma n . After about 20-25 minutes w h en Naresh D udi was going towards Fateha b ad and had crossed Moga No . 10, he saw m otorcycle of Hanuman on whi c h Kassi (spade) was hanging, w as standing there. Naresh Dudi probably t hought that Hanuman might have gone to t h e fields for irrigation. Informant also pointed out that dead bod y of Hanuma n is lying in General Hospital, Fatehabad. Several injury m a rks with dea d ly weapons were also noticed. Rajender son of Balbir Singh , as per complainant, brought dead body in t h e Government Hospital thinkin g it to be a c a se of roadside accident. How e ver, complainant suspected that in all proba b ility, his father Shri Hanuman has been murdered. Complai n ant

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-59480-2024 -3-

in quite c lear terms mentioned in the c o mplaint that Satish Kumar, Bh o op Singh et c . including several other per s ons, after hatching a conspir a cy, murdere d his father Shri Hanuman and, thus, requested the po l ice authoriti e s to catch hold of all those, wh o are involved in incident as als o to initiate a ppropriate proceedings again s t them. On the basis of s aid complain t , formal case vide FIR No. 1 75 was registered on 19.8.2 0 21 against t h e following 12 persons:-

(i) Bhoop Singh (ii) Pard e ep (iii) Krishan (iv) Bajrang (v) Vikram (vi) Chotu Ram (vi i ) Vijay @ Molu (viii) Dholu (ix) Rajender (x) Satish (xi) Jaiv i r (xii) Sajjan.

Investigations were set into motion during which post mor t em examinat i on was conducted. The Boa rd of Doctors who conducted p ost mortem e x amination opined as follows:-

<Cause of death in this cas e in our opinion is hemorrhage a nd shock and injury to vital o r gans i.e. brain, however, vis c era sent for chemical analysis, t h e final cause of death will be given after viscera report.=

Present petitioner was a r rested on 22.8.2021. Du r ing investiga t ion, he confessed to his involv e ment and got recovered a woo d en stick use d by him in the incident.

It is further the case of the p r osecution that during the cours e of investiga t ion, eight accused out of 12 named in the FIR, were fo u nd innocent. Investigating Officer, namely, the then DSP Tohana was of the opinion t h at following four persons were involved:(1) Satish (present petitione r (2) Vikram (3) Bhoop Singh a nd

(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-

Accordingly, Section 34 of I n dian Penal Code was added. On culmination of investigation, challan was filed against the aforesaid four persons under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364, 34 of In d ian Penal Co d e.

It can further be inferred th a t during the course of prosecu t ion evidence, complainant while appearing in the witness box also leve l led allegatio n s against those eight persons, who had been let off by the Investiga t ing Officer and, thus, an application under Section 319 of the Code of C riminal Procedure was move d by him to summon to those e i ght persons. Same is still pending adjudicati o n before this Court. 3. The petitioner filed an appli c ation for bail under Section 48 3 of BNSS before the learned Sessions Judg e , Fatehabad. The same came t o be dismisse d vide order dated 12.1.2023. Aggrieved of which, the pre s ent petition has been filed for grant of bail.

Submissions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner

Learned counsel for the p etitioner has raised many f old submissi o ns; firstly that the petitioner h as been falsely implicated in the present c ase only on the basis of hea r say evidence. Complainant h ad himself n o t witnessed the incident. Entir e facts were disclosed to him by his maternal uncle Vinod and brother Na r esh Dudi, who claimed to have witnesse d the incident. Continuing fur t her, learned counsel submits t hat even wh e n the statement of Naresh Du d i, as recorded by the Investiga t ing Officer u nder Section 161 of Code o f Criminal Procedure, is caref u lly perused, t he only logical inference that c an be drawn is that he was n o t a witness t o the incident. Secondly, the fact that the Investigating Officer after thorough l y investigating the matter arri v ed at a conclusion that out o f 12

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-59480-2024 -5-

persons n amed by complainant, 8 were f o und innocent, is itself reflectiv e of the falsit y of the case set up by the prose c ution. The third leg of submis s ion raised by learned counsel for the petition e r is that only with a view to fal s ely implicate the petitioner, recovery of 8D a nda9 was falsely planted on h im. The case being based on purely circums t antial evidence, there is nothin g to suggest/t o draw inference that deceased w as 8last seen9 alive in the comp a ny of the pe t itioner, Bhoop Singh etc. Fo u rthly, learned counsel submits t hat the exam i nation-in-chief of so called eye witness Naresh Dudi was recor d ed in Nove m ber, 2022, but since then, fo r reasons best known, he has not appeared for recording his remaining t e stimony. Out of 47 prosecu t ion witnesses, only 6 have been examined an d two have been given up. Thu s , as per learn e d counsel, it is quite evident t h at the possibility of completio n of trial in t he near future is quite remo t e. Further, incarceration of the petitione r , in the light of the submissi o ns advanced hereinabove, as per learned c ounsel would not serve any u seful purpose. It has, thus, been prayed t h at a lenient view be taken in f avour of the petitioner, who i s in custody s i nce 22.8.2021. Prayer for allo w ing the petition has been made. Submissions of Learned State Counsel

Status report by way of a ffidavit of Kulwant Singh, HPS, Deputy S uperintendent of Police (HQ, C rime and Traffic), Fatehabad has been file d on behalf of the State. L e arned State counsel opposes the applicati o n for grant of bail on the grou n d that in view of seriousness a nd gravity o f the offence, the role played b y the petitioner, his long custod y by itself can n ot be a ground to grant him th e concession of bail, for if he ( P ) is released, there is every likelihood of h i s (P) fleeing from the proces s of justice b y not appearing in the Court as also of overawing/influen c ing

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-59480-2024 -6-

complain a nt and other related witnesses. Prayer for dismissal of the b ail applicati o n has been made.

In view of the submissions a dvanced by learned counsel for the petitione r , the fact that one important p r osecution witness, namely, Na r esh Dudi, w h o claims to have witnessed th e incident has not appeared in the witness box since July 2022 for getting h is remaining statement recorde d as also that o ut of 47 witnesses only 6 have been examined, as has been rig h tly pointed o ut by learned counsel for t he petitioner, the possibility of completi o n of trial in near future is quit e remote. Thus, further detentio n of the petiti o ner would not only be violati v e of his rights under Article 2 1 of the Cons t itution of India, including righ t to speedy trial but would als o be against t h e principle of <Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception= as held by Hon9ble Supreme C ourt in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

Resultantly, petitioner is gr a nted the concession of bail sub j ect to his f u rnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned t rial Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. Th e petitioner shall abide by the followin g conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall n ot leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court .

(iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich 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-

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 14.10.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.10.18 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document