CRM-M/23802/2026 of VINOD KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 13 July 2026

REEMA SAINI

he had gone to Haridwar with his companions. He had not returned home since 17.06.2025. On 29.06.2025, he received information that dead body of Rajeev was lying on Chhainsa to Heerapur Road, at the tubewell of Vinod son of Hoshiar Singh of village Chhainsa. On the information, he along with his family members, Uday Chand, Premsukh, Devender, Khajan, Samandar reached the spot where he saw the dead body of his brother in front of fodder room of tubewell. Strangulation marks were visible on his neck. Unknown persons murdered his brother. Legal action was prayed for.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner had no motive to commit the offence. Petitioner was nominated as an accused on disclosure statement of co- accused Ballu which was inadmissible in evidence. No recovery was effected from possession of the petitioner, who as per prosecution case, was not even present at the time of alleged murder. Petitioner, who was arrested on 18.07.2025, was in custody for about 1 year. Investigation was complete and on these grounds, petitioner deserved to be released on regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was joined as accused upon disclosure statement of co-accused Ballu, who was arrested on secret information. Ballu confessed that he killed the deceased on the asking of Vinod Kumar as deceased got son of Ballu addicted to alcohol and ruined his family life. Petitioner too suffered disclosure statement, admitting his guilt and got recovered slipper of deceased from well. Charges were framed against the petitioner and out of 22 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined. Learned State counsel further submits that there were specific REEMA SAINI

and serious allegations against the petitioner. Keeping in view the serious and heinous nature of offence committed, petitioner was not entitled to benefit of bail.

5. As per case set up, co-accused Ballu son of Hoshiar Singh committed murder of deceased- Rajeev, who had spoiled the life of his (Ballu’s) son Krishan by getting him addicted to liquor. Petitioner has been nominated on disclosure statement of co-accused whereafter police recorded his own disclosure statement. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he told co-accused Ballu to eliminate the deceased Rajeev upon which co- accused Ballu strangulated Rajeev with his plastic belt. It is not prosecution case that petitioner was present at the time of alleged occurrence or had any motive. Investigation of the case is complete. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Although the veracity of the disclosure statements and the weight to be attached to them would be determined by the trial Court at final stage of the case, considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution against petitioner, the period of his custody which is almost one year, the fact that trial is likely to take sometime as no witness out of 22 has been examined, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Without commenting on merits of the case, 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. REEMA SAINI

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE 13.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

REEMA SAINI