CRM-M/28760/2026 of AAKASH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 129 dated 15.06.2025, registered under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) at Police Station City Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana (Annexure P-1).

2. The prosecution case is that on 15.06.2025, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased Hemant Kumar @ Rohit. It is alleged that on 14.06.2025 at about 4:00 p.m., the petitioner Akash, son of Bane Singh, called the deceased from his house and took him along. Subsequently, at about 5:20 p.m., the complainant received information that her son had fallen into the pond situated near Shyam Mandir. Upon reaching the spot, she found that her son had drowned. It is alleged that Maharaj Gyanidas, who was present near the pond, informed her that an altercation had taken place between the petitioner and the deceased and, KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh despite repeated requests made by him to rescue the deceased from the pond, the petitioner allegedly stated that "the bastard has to die, he has torn my underwear" and did not make any effort to save him. Suspecting that the petitioner had intentionally allowed her son to die, the complainant sought legal action against him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, present FIR came to be registered registered. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 193 BNSS was presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he did not rescue the deceased from drowning. There is no allegation that the petitioner pushed the deceased into the pond, assaulted him, or intentionally caused his death. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 105 of the BNS are not attracted, as there is neither any allegation of intention nor knowledge on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of the deceased. Learned counsel further argues that the statement of Maharaj Gyanidas, recorded during investigation under Section 180 BNSS and subsequently before the learned Trial Court, does not disclose any overt act, conspiracy or active participation on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that if the prosecution case is accepted as such, the said Maharaj, who was admittedly present at the spot and allegedly witnessed the occurrence, would stand on the same footing as the petitioner, yet no action KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh has been taken against him. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner, and he has remained in custody since 03.08.2025. It is contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 27.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 11 months and 24 days.

6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie connects him with the commission of the alleged offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses support the case of the prosecution and the correctness thereof can only be examined during the course of trial.

7. Be that as it may, this Court has considered the rival submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The principal allegation against the petitioner, as noticed from the prosecution case, is that he did not make any effort to save the deceased from drowning. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner had pushed the KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh deceased into the pond or had committed any overt act resulting in his death. Whether the allegations, as levelled, are sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged is a matter to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 03.08.2025, i.e. for 11 months and 25 days. The investigation stands concluded, the final report (challan) has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have been framed. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is, therefore, no longer required. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the statement of Maharaj Gani Das, a material prosecution witness, has already been recorded before the learned Trial Court. The trial is, however, likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner is held entitled to the concession of regular bail.

8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 28.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh