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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner Abhishek released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and not to misuse the concession of bail in any manner; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Abhishek, in custody since 25.05.2021 in FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021 (Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 323 IPC added, Police Station Nissing, District Karnal), is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Court's answer

Where out of the two material witnesses one (Raj Kumar, PW-5) resiled from his earlier statement, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, and the other (Shyam Singh, father of the deceased and stated eye-witness) avoided entering the witness box despite best efforts, the prosecution case at this stage appears to have suffered a serious dent.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has been in custody since 25.05.2021 and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period when the material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or not coming forward to depose; without expressing any opinion on the merits, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner Abhishek is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on conditions that he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not misuse the concession of bail in any manner.ratio¶24
Nothing observed in the order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail - Section 483 BNSS - third petition - murder case (Sections 302/34 IPC; Section 323 IPC added), FIR No.173 dated 18.05.2021, Police Station Nissing, District Karnal - petitioner Abhishek in custody since 25.05.2021 - FIR on statement of Kavita, wife of deceased Sonu, alleging attack with agricultural implements over a property dispute; allegations against Mahinder Singh, Abhishek and Reeta; mother of petitioner exonerated, challan only against petitioner and father - during pendency, Court directed recording of statements of two material witnesses; Raj Kumar (PW-5) turned hostile and did not support prosecution even in cross-examination, while Shyam Singh, father of the deceased and stated eye-witness, failed to appear despite best efforts - prosecution case suffered serious dent - trial proceeding at slow pace; no useful purpose in indefinite detention - regular bail granted subject to bail bonds and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate, with conditions to appear on every date and not misuse the concession - no expression on merits. (Mandeep Pannu J., oral, 14.01.2026.)

-1-

CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2026

Abhishek ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryan a ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the p etitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

Th e present is the third petitio n filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Naga r ik Suraksha Sanhita seeking g r ant of regular bail to the petiti o ner in FIR No.173 d ated 18.05.2021, registered ini t ially under Sections 302 and 3 4 of the Indian Pen a l Code at Police Station Nissi n g, District Karnal and during the course of inves t igation Section 323 IPC was al s o added. The petitioner has bee n in custody since 2 5 .05.2021.

As per the averments made in the p etition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has b een falsely implicated in the p resent case at the instance of the complainant pa r ty in connivance with the po l ice. It is asserted that there is no cogent or relia b le evidence available on recor d to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Sonu son of Shyam Singh. The petitioner claims that he has been roped in d ue to extraneous consideratio n s arising out of an inter se fa m ily property disput e .

It i s further averred that the FIR w as registered on the statemen t of Kavita, wife o f the deceased Sonu, wherein allegations were levelled aga i nst TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M) -2-

Mahinder Sin g h, his son Abhishek (the pr e sent petitioner) and Reeta. T he prosecution ver s ion, as reflected in the FIR, is that due to a property dispute, the accused person s allegedly attacked Sonu with a gricultural implements, resultin g in his death. How e ver, according to the petitioner, the complainant was not prese n t at the spot at the time of the alleged occurren c e and the FIR was lodged a fter deliberations, t h ereby casting serious doubt on t h e prosecution version.

It i s further pleaded that during the course of investigation, the mo t her of the petitione r was found innocent and exo n erated by the investigating age n cy and ultimately challan was presented only a g ainst the petitioner and his fa t her Mahinder Sing h . It is the case of the petitioner t hat no weapon of offence has been recovered from him and no specific role has b e en attributed to him except on the basis of omnib u s allegations.

Le a rned State counsel has oppose d the prayer for grant of regular b ail. It has been sub m itted that the petitioner is invo l ved in a serious offence punish a ble under Section 3 0 2 IPC and the allegations agai n st him are grave in nature. Lear n ed State counsel h a s contended that the offence r e lates to a brutal murder arising out of a property di s pute and that the petitioner has b een specifically named in the F IR. It is further arg u ed that merely because one o f the prosecution witnesses has not supported the c ase at this stage, the same c a nnot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on b a il, as the remaining prosecutio n evidence is yet to be led. Lear n ed State counsel h as also submitted that there i s everylikelihood of the petiti o ner influencing the witnesses or hampering the t r ial if he is released on bail a nd, therefore, the p e tition deserves dismissal.

D u ring the pendency of the pre s ent bail petition, this Court h ad directed the pr o secution to ensure recording of the statements of two mat e rial TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M) -3-

witnesses befor e the learned trial Court, namel y Raj Kumar and Shyam Singh. In compliance the r eof, the prosecution examined R aj Kumar as PW-5. However, the said witness ha s not supported the case of the p r osecution and was declared hos t ile. Even during hi s cross-examination by the lea r ned Public Prosecutor, he did not support the pro s ecution version in any manner. The other material witness, na m ely Shyam Singh, w ho is stated to be an eye-witne s s and also happens to be the fa t her of the decease d , has failed to appear before t h e learned trial Court despite b est efforts. This fa c t stands duly reflected in the re p ort received from the learned t rial Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, where out of the two mat e rial witnesses, one has resiled from his earlier st a tement and has not supported the prosecution ca s e, and the other, despite bei n g a crucial witness, has avoi d ed entering the w i tness box, the prosecution ca s e, at this stage, appears to have suffered a seri o us dent. This Court also can n ot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has b een in custody since 25.05.20 2 1 and the trial is proceeding a t a slow pace. No u seful purpose would be served b y keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an inde f inite period, particularly when t he material witnesses are either not supporting the prosecution or are not co m ing forward to depose. Wit h out expressing any opinion on the merits of the c a se, this Court is of the consid e red view that the petitioner has made out a case for g rant of regular bail. 8. Ac c ordingly, the present petitio n is allowed and the petiti o ner Abhishek is o r dered to be released on regu l ar bail, subject to his furnis h ing adequate bail b onds and surety bonds to th e satisfaction of the learned t rial Court/Duty Ma g istrate concerned. The petitio n er shall appear before the lear n ed trial Court on e a ch and every date of hearing a nd shall not misuse the conces s ion TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38814-2024 (O&M) -4-

of bail in any manner. Nothing observed her e inabove shall be construed as an expression on t h e merits of the case.

Pe n ding application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

January 14, 202 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document