JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.85 dated 05.03.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34/114 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act (Section 354 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal, Haryana.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question is as follows:-

'To SHO, P.S. Chandhut, District Palwal. Sir, Dungar Singh S/o Nahar Singh, I am resident of Village Chowkda, P.S. Maat, District Mathura. I have two children. My daughter Rajni is aged about 19 years and married on 07.02.2022 with Greeting Nohwar S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Village Singhoni, P.S. Naujheel, District Mathura, right now residing in the colony in front of Jeevan Jyoti Global School, District Palwal, near Kithwari and her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After 7 days of wedding, we took our daughter for one hour for meeting and then after a few days when my daughter talked to me on phone, she told me that her father-in-law keeps bad eyes on her and asked her to press his feet and acts dirty and has tried to force her, then I explained to my daughter that she should complaint about it to her husband and her mother-in-law. After that me and my son namely Krishan Kumar came to meet her at her in-laws house, then she asked us to take her parental home. When we asked her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband to take her, they refused, then we did not insist much because we had to maintain kinship. Then me and my son came back to our home. Thereafter, today we got the information that my daughter Rajni was sought dead. When we came to Civil Hospital and saw that she is sought dead in which my daughter's father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband are involved and therefore, request is made to police station that necessary action be initiated against the accused persons. Thank you. Sd/- Dungar Singh Mob. No.6397129735. Police Proceedings.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which all private prosecution witnesses stand examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred, in extenso, to zimni orders dated 20.02.2024, 16.04.2024, 21.05.2024, 20.07.2024, 12.08.2024, 07.09.2024 and also 30.09.2024 passed by trial Court to argue that the trial is not proceeding at the desired pace and the non-culmination of the trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner in any manner. To buttress this aspect of his arguments, learned counsel has iterated that even police officials have not been regularly appearing for having their testimonies recorded (as prosecution witnesses) despite bailable/non-bailable warrants having been issued against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the allegations levelled in the FIR and the prosecution case be taken as true, the prime allegation against the petitioner is one of abetting the main accused namely Greeting (son of the petitioner) to commit the murder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was earlier extended the concession of interim regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed in CRM-M-8280-2024 which was never ever misused by the petitioner & he surrendered back in time. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has iterated that it is the petitioner (herein) who has abetted the offence by instigating the main accused for committing the murder.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the c