Allowed

Rajat Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2026CRM-M/23364/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought under Section 483 BNSS in a murder FIR. Court found only the petitioner's disclosure statement connected him to the crime; no recovery was made. With custody exceeding one year, no other cases, and trial not commenced, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

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

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-23364-2026 (O&M)

¶3

219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-23364-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2026

¶5

RAJAT KUMAR ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

... RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.386 dated 16.12.2024 registered under Sections 103 and 61 of BNS (Sections 302 and 120-B IPC) at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was submitted by the complainant alleging that his son Deepankar was called by Ankit Kumar @ Chautala on 30.05.2024, after which he went missing and was later found dead on 31.05.2024 near the Barsot river bridge. Initially, suspicion was raised against Ankit Kumar. However, during investigation, the police declared Ankit Kumar innocent and implicated the petitioner on the basis of alleged call detail records of the deceased.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has emerged on the

¶15

basis of his own disclosure statement that an altercation took place between

¶16

JANKI BHATT 2026.05.26 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-23364-2026 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

them and he hit the deceased in anger due to being in intoxicated state. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Notice of motion.

¶21

Dr. Malvika Singh, D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Suraj Chawla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Naraingarh, District Ambala and custody certificate in the Court, which are taken on record. She further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08

¶22

days.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from suspicion and disclosure statement of the petitioner himself, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; no recovery has been effected from the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08 days; he is not involved in any other case; trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

JANKI BHATT 2026.05.26 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶27

¶28

CRM-M-23364-2026 (O&M)

¶29

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

¶30

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶33

25.05.2026		(H
Janki
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶34

JANKI BHATT 2026.05.26 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Rajat Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charanjeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurdeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sonam @ Sonam Sisodiya Vs State of Punjab

Ramji Vs State of Haryana

Rajneesh Vs State of Haryana

Ankush Vs State of Haryana and Others