Rajesh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail under Section 483 BNSS subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, under nine enumerated conditions (including surrender of passport and appearance on every fixed date); State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon breach of any condition.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Rajesh, accused in FIR No. 452 dated 16.11.2024 (PS Narnaund, Hisar) under multiple BNS sections and in custody since 09.09.2025, should be granted bail under Section 483 BNSS after his bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar on 06.12.2025.

Court's answer

Grant or refusal of bail is a matter of judicial discretion: while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (pari materia to Section 483 BNSS) the Court must weigh parameters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of offence, punishment if convicted, and past antecedents; there is no straight-jacket formula and each case must be examined on its peculiar facts.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner, in custody since 09.09.2025, deserves the concession of bail: his further incarceration would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (including the right to speedy trial) and would run counter to the principle 'Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception' (as held in Dataram); the Court reached this view on the submissions advanced, without adverting to the merits of the case lest the trial be prejudiced.

Key takeaways

Bail is granted subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, coupled with enumerated conduct conditions, including: no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; surrender of passport and no leaving the country without prior permission of the trial Court; no committing similar offences; no coercing, inducing, threatening or promising persons acquainted with the facts; no misuse of liberty; furnishing address and mobile number forthwith with prior intimation of any change; appearance before the trial Court on each and every fixed date unless specifically exempted; and liberty to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate to impose such other conditions as deemed appropriate.ratio¶45
In case of any breach of the aforesaid bail conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner by this order.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 07.05.2026 (Aaradhna Sawhney, J., oral) — CRM-M-21396-2026, Rajesh v. State of Haryana: bail granted under S.483 BNSS. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 452 dt. 16.11.2024, PS Narnaund (Hisar), registered under Ss.103(1), 127(6), 238(A), 249(A), 3(5), 309(4), 61(2), 66, 50 BNS; the FIR began u/s 127(6) BNS on a missing-person report, with Ss.103(1), 309(4) added after the complainant located his mother's dead body on 17.11.2024. Petitioner's name emerged in co-accused Anup's disclosure statement; prosecution attributes to him a supporting/abetting role (helping and guiding the main accused and his parents, knowing the entire facts). Arrests: Anup and a juvenile (23.11.2024), Sadhu Ram (24.11.2024), Maya (27.11.2024); challan subsequently filed; petitioner arrested 09.09.2025; his bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar on 06.12.2025 (impugned order). Grant rests on Art. 21 (including right to speedy trial) and the principle 'Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception' (Dataram, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131), with Sanjay Chandra, (2012) 1 SCC 40 relied on for the bail-discretion parameters; merits expressly not adverted to; parity noted (co-accused parents Sadhu Ram and Maya already bailed, verified by State counsel in Court). Nine conditions imposed, including surrender of passport and appearance on every fixed date; State free to seek cancellation on breach; observations expressly confined to the bail stage, trial to proceed independently.

CRM-M-21396-2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

255 CRM-M-21396-2026 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026

Rajesh

…Petitioner.

v.

State of H aryana

…Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocat e for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishan Lal Saini, Seni o r DAG, Haryana.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 452 dated 16.11.2 0 24, registere d against him under Sections 10 3 (1), 127(6), 238(A), 249(A), 3(5), 309(4), 61(2), 66, 50 of BNS, at Police Station Narnaund, Hisar, has f i led present p e tition under Section 483 of BN S S.

Relevant facts necessary f o r disposal of present petition are being tak e n from para 2 of the status re p ort dated 5.5.2026 filed by wa y of affidavit of Davender Nain, HPS, D eputy Superintendent of Pol i ce, Narnaun d , District Hansi. The same are r eproduced as under:-

“…On 16.11.2024, comp l ainant lodged a police re p ort regardin g missing of his mother and t he contents of the complaint are reiterate d below: On that day at about 1 :00 PM, she went at the veget a ble market i n Narnaund and did not return h ome after that. They searched for her, but n o clue was found. After giving physical description, a prayer w as

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -2-

made for searching his mother. On th e basis of said complaint, FIR u/s 127(6) B NS was registered. On 17.11.2024, at about 10.30 A M, complain a nt suffered a statement that he found the dead body of his mo t her near wat e r works. The body was scrat c hed by dogs. The dead body w as identified by complainant by the article s worn by her. It was alleged t hat some un k nown persons with the intenti o n to rob her, have murdered his mother. O ffence under sections 103(1), 309(4) of the BNS were added.” During the course of inv e stigation, spot of the crime w as inspected. Blood stained stone, blood s t ained grass, blood stained clot h es, blood st a ined sand etc. lying at the s p ot were collected and taken i nto possessio n . Post mortem of the dead b o dy was got conducted at Gen e ral Hospital, Hisar. The Board of Doctors o p ined that the cause of death in t his case is i n juries described coupled with neck compression . Post mor t em report is a ppended as Annexure R-1 alon g with Status Report.

During the further course of investigation, one Mandeep, so n of Jagbir di s closed that his aunt Krishna D e vi was murdered by Anup, so n of Sadhu R a m and juvenile son of Suresh, both residents of village Bud a na. The abov e two were arrested on 23.11.2024. Co-accused Anup confesse d to his invol v ement in the commission o f offence and threw light on the sequence of events and the manner in wh i ch the offence was committed. He further d i sclosed that after sexual assau l ting the lady, they murdered h er. These fa c ts were also disclosed by him t o his parents. On similar lines is the statemen t of Juvenile. Co-accused Sadhu Ram and his wife Maya (parent s of co-accus e d Anup) were arrested o n 24.11.2024 and 27.11.2 0 24, respectiv e ly.

Admittedly, the name of p resent petitioner cropped in the disclosur e statement of co-accused Anu p . As per the prosecution, the r ole

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -3-

attribute d to petitioner is that he initiall y helped the main accused and his parents, g uided them as also that the enti r e facts were known to him. T h us, he abette d the main accused in the comm i ssion of offence.

Mobile phone (make Vivo) was recovered from the petitio n er. The call d etail records of present petition were obtained which indicated t hat he was f r equently in touch with co-accu s ed Sadhu Ram and Maya. Re p ort of FSL, Madhuban (Annexure R-3) i n dicated that human semen w as detected o n the vaginal swab of the dec e ased. DNA profile obtained f r om blood sa m ple of co-accused Anup mat c hed with the DNA of the vag i nal swab of d eceased.

On culmination of invest i gation, challan complete in all respects w as filed in the Court.

Petitioner, who was arrested on 9.9.2025, moved an applica t ion for grant of bail. Learned Additional S essions Judge-cum-Special Ju d ge, Fast Tra c k Court, Hisar, vide order d a ted 6.12.2025, dismissed the s aid applicati o n. Aggrieved of which, the pre s ent petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the pet i tioner contends that petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present cas e only on account of the fact tha t he was kno w n to the parents of main accuse d Anup and Juvenile offender, b oth of whom , few days after committing m u rder of Jaibir, raped and murd e red mother o f the complainant. Continuin g further, learned counsel conte n ds that after the murder of Jaibir, co-accuse d Anup narrated the incident to his father co - accused Sadhu Ram, who con s ulted petitioner and requested h im (P) to h e lp them being a co-villager. Even at that time, petitioner h ad explicitly told the parents of co-accused A nup that the boys should be as k ed to surren d er before the Police. This adv i se was not taken in the light s p irit

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -4-

by the fa m ily members of co-accused An u p, who with a view to level sc o res with him, got infuriated and falsely invo l ved him in the present case as a lso in anothe r case bearing FIR No. 437 da t ed 6.11.2024. Further, apart f r om the discl o sure statement of co-accuse d , no incriminating material w as recovere d at the instance of the pet i tioner connecting him with the commission of offence.

Towards the end, learned counsel contends that simil a rly situated c o-accused, namely, Sadhu Ra m and Maya, who are the parent s of co-accus e d Anup, have been granted the concession of bail (which fact has been ver i fied by the learned State counsel on instructions of SI Sand e ep, today in C ourt), it has, thus, been praye d that on the grounds of parity a nd consideri n g that investigations are c omplete, but the likelihood of completi o n of trial in the near future is q u ite remote, further incarceratio n of petitione r would not serve any useful pur p ose as the same would not onl y be violative o f his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inclu d ing right to s peedy trial but would also be a gainst the principle of “Bail i s a general r ule and incarceration is an e x ception”. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made. 4. Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel submits that petitioner play e d a pivotal role in the commis s ion of offenc e inasmuch as he guided the yo u ng offenders and encouraged t h em to follow the wrong path. Initially, w h en the boys had murdered Jaibir, petitione r encouraged them and assured that proper legal assistance w o uld be provi d ed to them. Feeling confident a nd encouraged by the underta k ing of the petitioner, the young offenders co m mitted the present heinous offe n ce of raping a middle aged woman, robbin g her of her precious jewellery a nd

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -5-

thereafte r killing her. Not only did the p e titioner assit the other accused but also prov i ded financial support to them. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate t h at on account of some prior en m ity, name of petitioner was fal s ely taken by c o-accused Anup and juvenile o f fender.

It is further the submissi o n learned State counsel tha t if extended the concession of bail, the likel i hood of petitioner fleeing from the process o f justice by not appearing i n the Court and overawing the complain a nt and related witnesses cann o t be ruled out. In view of the r ole played b y the petitioner and seriousness and gravity of offence, no case for grant of b ail is made out. Dismissal of p e tition has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record. 6. It is settled that grant or re fu sal of bail is the discretion of the Court. F actors to be kept in mind wh i le granting the concession of b ail have bee n discussed by the Hon’ble Su p reme Court in several cases. T he essence being that while exercising pow e rs under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ( P ari materia t o Section 483 of BNSS), the C ourt has to take into considera t ion various p a ra meters including the nature o f the charge, evidence, serious n ess and grav i ty of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if h e is convicte d , his past antecedents etc. Th u s, there can be no straight ja c ket formula fo r exercising the discretion and e ach case has to be examined o n its peculiar f acts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, h ad held as under:-

“ 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid d o wn from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026

-6-

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reason a ble amount of bail. The obje c t of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation o f liberty must be considere d a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an acc u sed person will stand his trial w hen called upon. The courts o we more than verbal respect to the principle that punish m ent begins after conviction, an d that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest tim e s, it was appreciated that deten t ion in custody pending completi o n of trial could be a cause of g r eat hardship. From time to tim e , necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should b e held in custody pending tria l to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `neces s ity' is the operative test. In this c ountry, it would be quite cont r ary to the concept of personal l i berty enshrined in the Constitu t ion that any person should be p unished in respect of any ma t ter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in a ny circumstances, he should b e deprived of his liberty upon o nly the belief that he will ta mp er with the witnesses if lef t at liberty, save in the most extr a ordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the questi o n of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that a ny imprisonment before conv i ction has a substantial puni t ive content and it would be im p roper for any Court to refuse b ail as a mark of disapprova l of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted f or it or not or to refuse bail t o an

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -7-

un-convicted person for th e purpose of giving him a tast e of imprisonment as a lesson.”

In view of the settled propo s ition of law, submissions advanced by learne d counsel for the petitioner, bu t without adverting to the merit s of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial , this Court is of the opinion t hat petitione r , who has been in custody s ince 09.09.2025, deserves to be extended the concession of bail as his (P) further incarceration would not only be v iolative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of In d ia, including right to speedy trial but wou l d also be against the principl e of “ Bail is a general rule and incarcera t ion is an exception ” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 fur n ishing bail bonds/surety bond s 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 s urrender his passport before the learned trial court and shall not 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.

(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

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21396-2026 -8-

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.

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) 07.05.2026 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document