IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ombir ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 03.02.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 06.02.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 06.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 91 dated 02.03.2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC (Section 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 02.03.2023, on receipt of information regarding death of one Pradeep in some altercation and his dead body having been brought in Civil Hospital, Sonipat, a police party headed by ASI Ashok Kumar reached there, wherein complainant Suresh Kumar, father of victim Pradeep, submitted a written complaint alleging that on the same day at about

08:00 AM, his cousin brother Ombir (petitioner herein) had taken the victim along with him on his motorbike. At about 12:00 PM, his brother received a call from Ombir and then they had rushed towards the informed place and found that the victim was lying in a critically injured condition. He was brought to the hospital but had died. While alleging that Ombir and his accomplices had murdered the victim, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim and inquest proceedings were conducted. The petitioner and co-accused Ashish were apprehended on 02.03.2023. The petitioner suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that the victim had been making indecent talks with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) from the past few months and despite trying to make him understand, he did not stop and feeling offended, he had hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Shubham and Ashish and had killed the victim. He demarcated the place of occurrence and got recovered the weapons of offence. Co-accused were nominated and arrested.

Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. A false recovery of weapon has been planted upon him. No bloodstains were found on the said weapon. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose.

Co-accused Shubham and Ashish have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner was duly named in the FIR and his involvement is clearly borne out from the material collected during investigation. The petitioner was last seen in the company of the deceased and had taken him on his motorcycle shortly before the occurrence. The death of the victim was homicidal in nature and was caused due to the impact of the injuries sustained by him. During investigation, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement leading to the demarcation of the place of occurrence and recovery of