JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

CRM-19927-2025

The instant application is allowed as prayed for, and Annexures P-2 to P-6 are taken on record.

Main case

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.309 dated 22.10.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (and Section 120-B IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor attributed any specific role in the initial complaint. His name surfaced only during the investigation, allegedly through disclosure statements made by co-accused persons, which by themselves are inadmissible in evidence under law.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, and that there is no eyewitness or independent material directly connecting him to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel contends that the CCTV footage collected during the investigation does not clearly depict the petitioner; only the lower portion of one of alleged assailants is visible, which the prosecution presumes to be that of the petitioner. However, this identification, as per the learned counsel, remains speculative and unsubstantiated. It has been further submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased, which no doubt holds significant probative value, does not name the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the co-accused, who are similarly situated, have already been granted the concession of bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and has now been in custody since 22.12.2023. It has still further been emphasized that the investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as only 1 out of 57 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It has been also pointed out that the most material witness i.e. the complainant has since been examined.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, primarily on the ground of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, as well as the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. However, learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute that the co-accused have already been granted bail. The status of the trial and the fact that the complainant has been examined, have also not been disputed by the learned State counsel, on instructions.

6. On a specific query posed by this Court, the learned State counsel, on instructions, has candidly submitted that while certain co-accused are clearly identifiable in the CCTV footage, the petitioner is not distinctly visible. Only the lower portion of one of the alleged assailants is seen, and the prosecution suspects that this may be the petitioner.

7. In addition, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, which is reproduced hereinunder: -

'To, Chowki Incharge, Jhumpa Kalan. Sir, it is requested that I Anil Kumar son of Shri Kuldeep Singh resident of Garva. We are two brothers. My elder brother was 21.10.2023 at Vikram Kumar. around 7.00 On PM, my brother Vikram left home saying that it was the birthday of Vikas son of Mandroop Singh resident of Garwa, he had invited me 22.10.2023, at to the party. around 1.00 AM, On I received a call from Sandeep s/o Shri Dharampal resident of Garwa, he informed me that Vikram's car was parked near Jhinga Farm on the Suratpura Road near to Vikas's field and the Vikram was being assaulted. Later, I came to know that Vikas son of Shri Mandroop, Krisha s/o