IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.02.2026 Pronounced on : 06.03.2026 Sahil ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Sanchit Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.454 dated 23.09.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Prerna’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that the marriage of her brother Amardeep was solemnized with Krishma, and that after marriage, the mother and step- father of Krishma used to harass complainant’s father Vijay Ahuja. According to complainant, Krishma had even sold the gold jewellery gifted to her by her father-in-law Vijay Ahuja. As per complainant, on 23.09.2024 her father had gone on a two-wheeler for prayer in the temple and later on, she came to know that he was attacked by some unknown persons and admitted in hospital. According to complainant, in the hospital the doctor declared her father to be dead.

3. Heard.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case there is no eye-witness account to prove identity of the petitioner, as the person responsible for the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and without any iota of evidence, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case.

5. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than one year and five months, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace as out of twenty nine prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the story set-out by the prosecution nowhere alleges that the petitioner was responsible for causing injury on the person of deceased. In view of abovementioned contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

6. The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that although in the present case there is no eye-witness account, yet, to prove the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime, there is ample evidence. According to learned counsel for the complainant, the video footage captured by a CCTV camera makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was tracking the movements of deceased along with his co-accused, and that during the course of investigation, when enquiries were made, it was found that the petitioner was responsible for the sale of gold ornaments, received from the daughter-in-law of deceased, to the jeweller. According to learned counsel for the complainant, statement of jeweller has already been recorded by the Investigating Officer and he has duly identified the petitioner.

7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that in the present case, the material witnesses are yet to be examined, and that the total custody period of the petitioner cannot be treated to be a pe