Ishant Vs State of Haryana

1.	The date when thejudgment is reserved	22.07.2026
2.	The date when thejudgment ispronounced	24.07.2026
3.	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	24.07.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5.	The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof	Not applicable

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.607, dated 23.06.2024, registered under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B of IPC, at

¶15

Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶16

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-18052-2026 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

The adumbrated facts as emanated from the record are that on 23.06.2024, on receipt of an information at the Police Station regarding an incident of murder of one female and one youth having taken place in Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, after committing offence of robbery, a police party rushed to the spot, wherein accused Kajal, daughter of victim Meena was found present. She recorded her statement to the effect that on the same day, she had gone out of her house at about 2:00 pm and on coming back, found the dead bodies of her mother Meena and brother Rahul lying therein. She disclosed that gold and silver jewellery kept in the house was found missing and someone had killed her family members after committing offence of robbery. As on seeing the dead bodies, it appeared that death of victims had occurred about 7-8 hours back, therefore, a suspicion had arisen in the minds of the police officials, who were present there. A case under Section 302 of IPC was registered.

¶20

As per further allegations, Kajal was joined into investigation on the same day. On interrogation, she suffered disclosure statement to the effect that out of hatred with the victims, she had hatched a conspiracy with her cousin Krish to murder the victims and in pursuance thereof, on 23.06.2024, accused Krish had came to her house, had strangulated and then killed her mother and had then killed her brother Rahul by attacking him with a rod and then strangulating him. Accused Krish was arrested on 24.06.2024. He too suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by saying that the relations between victim Meena and his family were strained due to some property dispute and due to that reason and on asking of accused Kajal, he had hatched a conspiracy to kill

¶21

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

-3-

¶23

CRM-M-18052-2026 (O&M)

¶24

the victims. He suffered another disclosure statement on 26.06.2024 to the effect that his brother Ishant i.e. the present petitioner was also joined into the conspiracy. Accused Kajal had promised to give a sum of Rs.50,000/and their share in the property to them and that at the time when he had committed murder of the victims, accused Kajal had kept a vigil and further that the petitioner had been in touch with them through whatsApp. The accused Kajal also suffered a second disclosure statement on 25.06.2024 naming the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly nominated as an accused and was arrested on 26.06.2024. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. He recovered the mobile phone used by him for communicating with the co-accused. Investigation now stands completed.

¶25

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of second disclosure statements of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. Accused Kajal in her first disclosure statement did not attribute any role whatsoever to the petitioner nor named him as one of the conspirators. The petitioner was not named as accused even in the first disclosure statement of co-accused Krish. His second disclosure statement has been manipulated by the Investigating Agency. His presence at the spot of occurrence has not been established. No incriminating evidence has been recovered at his instance nor collected during the course of investigation. There is no material on record to show that he was in contact with the coaccused at the time of occurrence or had hatched a conspiracy with them. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 10 out of 26

¶26

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-18052-2026 (O&M)

¶28

-4-

¶29

prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His antecedents are clean. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

¶30

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was one of the conspirators in the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused about one month prior to the occurrence for the purpose of committing murder of both the victims in a brutal manner. The trial is going on at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶31

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The petitioner is alleged to have joined the conspiracy hatched by co-accused for committing murder of the victims. As per the own case of the prosecution, he was not amongst the assailants when the victims had been killed. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and co-accused rests upon the second disclosure statements of the co-accused and the circumstantial inference. In their first disclosure statements, the petitioner was not named at all. No call detail record between the petitioner and co-accused has been collected to prove that he was in constant touch with the co-accused Kajal as on the date of occurrence or prior to that. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the petitioner being a conspirator can be drawn and not at this stage. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 02

¶33

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-18052-2026 (O&M)

¶35

-5-

¶36

years. No doubt, the allegations in this case are serious. However, in the circumstances peculiar to this case and keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the role ascribed to him, this Court is of the considered opinion that further pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial

¶37

Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

¶38

(i) he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted.

¶39

(ii) he shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner.

¶40

(iii) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶41