Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, who is an acc u sed in case FIR No. 286 d a ted 16.9.202 3 , registered against him unde r Sections 302, 201, 34 of In d ian Penal Co d e, at Police Station Kalayat, D i strict Kaithal, has filed the pre s ent petition u n der Section 483 of BNSS for g r ant of bail.

¶15

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

¶16

EHC Suresh Kumar, who th e n was posted as Security Agent in Police St a tion, Kalayat, set the criminal l aw in motion by filing a compl a int pointing therein that in the late hours of 16.9.2023, he was presen t at Rapriya P atti Balu to receive a secret i nf ormation with regard to case F IR No. 285 d ated 15.9.2023, under Section 346 IPC, Police Station Kala y at, when he r eceived another information th a t Maafi (since deceased), daug h ter

¶17

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-21852-2025 -2-

¶19

of Sures h Kumar (present petitioner), r e sident of Rapriya Patti Balu, w as having love affair with co-villager Rohit, son of Ramphal, resident of K h eri Chopta, D istrict Hisar. The girl was p r eparing to secretly elope with her lover Ro h it. When the family members o f the girl came to know about her love affai r , they overpowered her and to o k her to their house in village B alu and kille d her. Further, with the intent i on of destroying the evidence, the body of t h e girl was also cremated. Com p lainant alleged that mother of l ate Maafi, n a mely, Bala Devi, her father Sur e sh Kumar (present petitioner) a nd other fa m ily members had killed the y oung girl. On the statemen t of complain a nt, a formal case vide FIR No. 286 dated 16.9.2023, w as registere d against him under Sections 30 2 , 201, 34 of Indian Penal Cod e , at Police St a tion Kalayat, District Kaithal. During the course of investigat i on, petitione r was arrested on 16.9.2023.

¶20

Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evide n ce. Accordin g to them, incriminating mate r ial collected during the cours e of investiga t ion, complete chain of events, collectively pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is further t h e case of prosecution that after committi n g the horrifying murder, pet i tioner, who is the father of the deceased made an extra judicial confess i on before his son-in-law, nam e ly, Ravi Ku m ar, who is married to his elder d aughter Manju, confessing the r ein that he ( P ) and his wife Bala Devi were u pset when they came to know t hat their yo u ng daughter was emotionall y entangled with Rohit and w as planning to elope with him. They tried their level best to make her understa n d, but she was adamant and ope n ly announced in front of the e n tire family th a t she would be marrying none- e lse but Rohit. Disapproving of her ‘like’, th e y killed her. Incidentally, the m otorcycle of Rohit, who had c o me

¶21

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-21852-2025 -3-

¶23

to meet t h e deceased, as per prosecution, was also recovered from the h o use of the pet i tioner.

¶24

It is further the case of pros e cution that since the cremation h ad already p erformed, the bones of the d eceased were collected from the crematio n site, converted into a sealed p a rcel and sent to FSL. Photogra p hs of the sit e were also got clicked. Call de t ails etc. of petitioner, the dece a sed and Rohi t were also taken into possessio n .

¶25

On culmination of invest i gation, challan complete in all respects w as present in the Court against p resent petitioner and his wife.

¶26

An application for grant o f bail filed by the petitioner w as dismisse d by the learned Additional Se s sions Judge, Kaithal, in term s of order dat e d 8.4.2025. Aggrieved of the s ame, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the pet i tioner contends that the petitio n er, who lost h is young daughter, has been fa l sely implicated in the present c a se. He and h is wife had no ‘motive’ to ki l l their daughter. It is further the submissi o n of learned counsel that there is ‘no eye witness’ account to the alleged i n cident. The entire case of t he prosecution is based on the circumst a ntial evidence. As per the c a se of prosecution, petitioner h ad confided in his own son-in-law Ravi K u mar (married to his elder daug h ter Manju) a n d had elaborated upon the m a nner in which the young girl w as done to death. Aforesaid Ravi Kum a r was examined as PW-5, w ho however, did not support the prosecutio n case and resiled from the ver s ion earlier gi v en to the police authorities. A f ter being declared ‘hostile’, on the request o f learned PP, he was subjected to rigorous cross-examination, but

¶28

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-21852-2025 -4-

¶30

nothing m aterial or fruitful to support the case of prosecution could be elicited t h erefrom.

¶31

It is further the submissi o n of learned counsel that e v en otherwis e the story of prosecution is hig h ly doubtful, in view of the stan d of the comp l ainant, who deposed that thoug h he received information about the tragic in c ident at about 9.30 PM on 16.9.2023, but he did not report the matter to the police authorities. It is onl y when he woke up during midn i ght that his s t atement was recorded at about 1.30 AM. Even otherwise, bei n g a Security A gent posted in the area, it is unbelievable that he received no informati o n at all about the incident on 1 4.9.2023. The fact that during his cross-exa m ination, he admitted having s tayed in the village for two d a ys, i.e., on 14.9.2023 and 15.9.2023, furth e r creates dent in the prosecu t ion story, for it appears strange enough to co m mon sense that during this per i od, no one i n formed him about the inciden t . Attention of the Court has a lso been dra w n to statement made on oath b y Sh. Rakesh, son of Prem Ch a nd (brother o f co-accused Bala Devi), who while appearing as PW1 admi t ted during cr o ss-examination that he did not s ee any injury marks on the bod y of the youn g girl except for some blisters. Further, Smt. Dimple, mothe r of Rohit al s o put in appearance as PW 4 , who during cross-examina t ion deposed t hat her son Rohit had returne d back home in the late evenin g of 16.9.202 3 alongwith motorcycle.

¶32

Towards the end, learned c o unsel contends that the petiti o ner who has b een in custody since 16.9.2023, deserves a lenient view to be ta k en in his fa v our, for out of 22 prosecuti o n witnesses, only 13 have been examine d and, thus, the likelihood of t h e trial being completed in the n ear future is q uite remote. Thus, his (P) fu r ther incarceration would not s e rve

¶33

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-21852-2025 -5-

¶35

any usef u l purpose as the same would n ot only be violative of his ri g hts under Ar t icle 21 of the Constitution of I n dia, including right to speedy t rial but woul d also be against the principl e of “Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception”. Prayer f or allowing the petition has been made.

¶36

Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel contends that the plea take n by the petitioner that his daug h ter died due t o electrocution, appears to be a n after thought, for had it been so, there was no occasion for him not to rush her to any hospital and to hurri e dly perform t he last rites. This was done b y petitioner and his other fa m ily members to shield them from legal punis h ment. Due to sheer guilt, petiti o ner confided to his son-in-law Ravi Kumar ( husband of elder daughter Ma n ju) and elab o rated upon the manner in whic h he (P) and his wife murdered t h eir young da u ghter. It is further the submiss i on of learned State counsel that the young girl was emotionally attache d to Rohit, a co-villager, t h eir relations h ip was not approved by the fa m ily members who in a fit of rage killed he r . It has also been prayed that n o case for taking a lenient vie w in favour o f petitioner is made out. Dismis s al of the petition has been so u ght for.

¶37

Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶38

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR has alrea d y been noticed in para 2 of the order. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the peti t ioner, but without adverting to the merits o f the case, the fact that peti t ioner has been in custody si n ce 16.9.202 3 , investigation qua him is com p lete, for challan has already been

¶39

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-21852-2025 -6-

¶41

filed, as a lso taking note of the fact th a t out of 22 prosecution witnes s es, only 13 h ave been examined till date, th u s, possibility of completion of t rial in the ne a r future is quite remote, lenient v iew is taken in favour of petiti o ner who is n o t involved in any other criminal case, by extending him conces s ion of bail, f o r his further incarceration woul d not only be violative of his ri g hts under Ar t icle 21 of the Constitution of I n dia, including right to speedy t rial but woul d also be against the principl e of “ Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception ” as held by as held by Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶42

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:-

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty.

¶49

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRM-M-21852-2025

¶51

-7-

¶52

(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.

¶53

(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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

		(AARADHNA SAWHNEY )
21.01.202 6		JUDGE
gbs
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.26 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs Rajveer Rattan and Anr.

Orjan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Abhishek Singh Vs Brijpal Singh

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shamsher Singh Alias Dani Vs State of Haryana