CRM-M/28139/2026 of ANIL SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. T under Section “BNSS”) for 17.12.2023 re District Sonip dismissed by t

2. T complaint sub

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH C MA

Versus HARYANA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA e date when the judgment is reser e date when the judgment is pron e date when the judgment is uplo bsite ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full judg nounced e delay, if any, of the pronouncem gment and reasons thereof. Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Adv *** BATRA, J. The instant one is the second p n 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur grant of regular bail in case ar egistered under Section 302 of pat. His previous petition bearin this Court vide order dated 31.07 The aforementioned FIR was reg bmitted by Rohit, resident of v

B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-28139-2026 (O&M)

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA rved 09.09.2026 nounced 10.09.2026 aded on the 10.09.2026 udgment is gment is Full ment of full Not applicable r the petitioner vocate General, Haryana petition filed by the petitioner raksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short rising out of FIR No.894 dated f IPC at Police Station Kundli, ng No.CRM-M-22453-2025 was 7.2025. gistered on the basis of a written village Kundli, alleging that the r t d , s n e AMIT SHARMA

petitioner, who Pratap Singh o with each ot strangulating h receipt of this to be lying Investigation dead body wa live-in relatio interrogated a living in a live and had been persons, but sh them in the m around her nec the petitioner victim.

3. It falsely implic victim. She h month has elap not progressed 02 years and 0

o had been living with the victim of his village and had been work ther. He informed that the p her with a dupatta and her dead complaint, a police party reache dead. A case under Section proceedings were initiated. Po as conducted. The petitioner, wh onship, was apprehended on and made a disclosure statement e-in relationship with the victim n advising the victim to stop m he did not listen to him. An arg morning of 17.12.2023 and he ck and strangulated her. Investig is facing trial for commission o t is argued by learned counsel fo ated in this case. There is no e has further argued that a period psed since the dismissal of his p d much. He has suffered incarce 08 months . The trial will take c

m Pooja in a room owned by one king in a factory, used to quarrel etitioner had killed Pooja by body was lying in the room. On ed the spot and found the victim 302 of IPC was registered. ost-mortem examination of the ho was living with the victim in n 17.12.2023 itself. He was t to the effect that he had been m but was suspecting her fidelity maintaining relations with other gument had taken place between had put dupatta of the victim gation now stands completed and of the offences of murder of the or the petitioner that he has been eyewitness to the murder of the d of more than 01 year and 01 previous petition but the trial has eration for a period of more than considerable time to conclude as

e l y n m . e n s n y r n m d e n e s n s AMIT SHARMA

only 14 out o witness to the no circumstan victim has bee the deceased, body was fou examined and turned hostile. useful purpose day spent by h concession o fundamental r He is ready to Learned coun towards the st of the victim, of the house, which have b have not impl has urged that

4. P serious allega found in the sa of 21 witnesses have been exam e occurrence. The case rests up nce connecting him with the off en collected during the course o her husband, the landlord of und, his son, as well as the d have not supported the prosecu . The chances of conclusion of t e would be served by detaining him in custody has furnished hi f bail. His prolonged incar rights guaranteed under Article o abide by the terms and condi nsel for the petitioner has draw atements of PW-1 Rohit, comp PW-4 Vinod, husband of the vic and PW-7 Mohit, son of Partap een placed on record and which icated the petitioner in commiss the petition deserves to be exten Per contra, learned State coun tions against the petitioner. Th ame room in which she was resi

mined so far. There is no eye- pon circumstantial evidence and fence of homicidal death of the of investigation. The mother of the premises wherein the dead complainant, have since been ution version. All of them have trial in near future are bleak. No him in custody anymore. Each im a new ground afresh to seek rceration militates against his 21 of the Constitution of India. itions to be imposed upon him. wn the attention of this Court plainant, PW-2 Tarawati, mother ctim, PW-6 Partap Singh, owner p Singh, copies of statements of h show that all these witnesses sion of the subject offences, and nded benefit of bail. nsel has argued that there are e dead body of the victim was iding with the present petitioner.

- d e f d n e o h k s . . t r r f s d e s . AMIT SHARMA

The trial is go any undue del connecting the living in live-i one is not ma deserve to be a

5. T counsel for the

6. S successive one to move succe Court, while e any fresh gro taken in the e noted that eve action for filin kept in custo considered ev incarceration material witne prosecution ve likely to take t has come on ing on at a proper pace and does lay in conclusion of the same. T e petitioner with the offence of in relationship with him. The pre aintainable. It is, therefore, stre allowed. This Court has heard the rival e parties. So far as the question of mainta e is concerned, it may be mentio essive bail application for grant entertaining such a subsequent b und which persuade it to take earlier application is made out o ery day spent by an accused in c ng a bail application under certa ody for indefinite period and ven if it is filed repeatedly. for a period of more than two esses have since been examine ersion. The case rests upon circu time. Taking into consideration t record, the period spent by the

s not suggest that there would be There are material circumstances murder of the victim, who was esent petition being a successive essed that the petition does not submissions made by learned ainability of this petition being oned that, an accused has a right of bail and it is the duty of the bail application, to consider that a view different from the one or not. It is also required to be custody provides a new cause of ain circumstances. He cannot be d the bail application can be The petitioner has undergone o years and eight months. The d, they have not supported the umstantial evidence. The trial is the nature of the evidence which e petitioner in custody, and the e s s e t d g t e t e e f e e e e e s h e AMIT SHARMA

attendant facts on the merits petitioner has allowed and t furnishing per trial Court/Chi

7. S any, is rendere

10.09.2026 Amit Sharma s and circumstances, but without of the case, this Court is of t made out a case for grant of b the petitioner is ordered to be rsonal as well as surety bonds to ief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Mag Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. ( Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No

t meaning to make any comment the considered opinion that the bail. Accordingly, the petition is released on bail subject to his o the satisfaction of the learned gistrate concerned. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

t e s s d f AMIT SHARMA