Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/26688/2026 of RAJIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 29 July 2026
2 inspected it. A half sleeve red colour T-shirt lying beneath head of the dead body was recovered and taken into police possession. Post-mortem of the deceased was done. Cause of death was strangulation sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and was homicidal. On the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
inspected it. A half sleeve red colour T-shirt lying beneath head of the dead body was recovered and taken into police possession. Post-mortem of the deceased was done. Cause of death was strangulation sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and was homicidal. On the basis of post- mortem report, offence under Section 302 IPC was found made out. FIR was registered. Site was inspected. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Call detail records were obtained. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that deceased and petitioner Rajit son of Amarpal both worked in a Company. Petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2023. His disclosure statement was recorded and offence under Section 201 IPC was added regarding destruction of mobile phone of deceased. Section 404 IPC was later added. On completion of necessary formalities, challan was presented in the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody for the last more than 3 years and 6 months. Out of 24, 14 witnesses had been examined. Petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was living with the deceased. Rent agreement with the landlord was in favour of Somwati. The only incriminating evidence against the petitioner projected by the police was supplementary statement of Pardeep Sharma recorded after 12 days of the incident. However, complainant when examined during the trial did not attribute any role to the petitioner. Considering the period of incarceration, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Malkeet Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rai, District Sonipat and has strongly opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that petitioner had close acquaintance with deceased Somwati and was residing REEMA SAINI
with her in the rented room at Liwan. On the night of occurrence, after a quarrel with the deceased, petitioner strangulated and murdered her, leaving her in dead condition. Thereafter, he fled. Offence committed was heinous in nature involving loss of human life. In case of release on bail, petitioner was likely to abscond or influence witness. Considering the seriousness of offence, gravity of allegations, petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail.
5. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He appears to have been involved on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant that a boy named Rajit used to visit Somwati and he be also interrogated. Complainant has since been examined in the Court as PW1. In his statement, before the Court, he merely proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A and application Ex.PW1/B, besides the rent agreement which was taken into police possession. The only other evidence which the prosecution relies upon is a T-shirt which was allegedly recovered near the dead body. Whether or not the T-shirt belonged to the petitioner, would be a matter of trial. Out of 24 witnesses in the case, prosecution has examined only 14, 10 witnesses are yet to be examined. Other witnesses which remain to be examined are mainly police officials and there is no prospect of the petitioner influencing them. Conclusion of trial by an early date is not in sight. Petitioner is incarcerated w.e.f. i.e.22.01.2023 for the last more than 3 years and 6 months. His antecedents are clean. He is not involved in any other offence.
6. Speedy trial has now been recognised as a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged custody of an accused and delay in trial entitled him to bail. Law in this regard has been settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Sagar Ashok Satkar REEMA SAINI
Versus The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 2870 of 2024 decided on 12.07.2024; Nilesh Vithoba Gadade Versus The State of Maharashtra and another, Crl. Appeal No.3040 of 2025 decided on 18.07.2025 and Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8523 of 2024 decided on 09.09.2024.
7. Considering the period of custody and the delay in trial besides all other relevant facts and circumstance of the case, but without a comment on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 29.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI