IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Pronounced on: 08.05.2025 Chandrapal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Petitioner-in-person.

Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Amicus curiae, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunpreet Singh, Advocate as legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana assisted by ACP Sukhbir Singh.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking issuance of directions to respondents to hand over the investigation of the case stemming from FIR No.159 dated 20.04.2022 registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram to some independent agency like CBI to ensure a free and fair investigation.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 18.04.2022, at around 9:00 AM, the petitioner’s son Jinesh@Nitin was kidnapped by accused persons namely Ankit, Subash, Vir Singh Brother-in-law of Subash, Tikam Singh, Subash’s uncle in their vehicle who all are residents of Bijnor (Uttar Pardesh) and New Delhi. The occurrence was eye witnessed by Beena and Rinki daughters of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner’s wife received phone call from mobile number of Janesh, who said that he has been kidnapped by aforesaid accused and has been detained in a room at Delhi and they were planning to kill him. Upon this, wife of petitioner made complaint with regard to incident to Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor (Uttar Pardesh) but no action was taken thereof. Next day on the intervening night of 19/20.04.2022, a call was received from the phone number 89501-98202 on the mobile of petitioner’s wife and it was told that the son of petitioner has met with an accident with truck and is admitted at sector-10 Gurugram. Thereafter, when petitioner reached Gurugram alongwith his relatives, he found that his son is already dead and even postmortem has been performed. Afterwards, FIR (supra) has been registered in this matter.

3. Learned amicus curiae inter alia contends that petitioner had a land dispute with his real brothers for the last few years. So keeping grudge of it, accused persons who are petitioner’s nephews and relatives, kidnapped his son Jinesh @ Nitin on 18.04.2022 and later on killed him. With respect to abduction of his son Janesh @ Nitin by aforesaid accused persons, petitioner’s wife Dulari Devi submitted a complaint on 18.04.2022 to SHO Police Station Syohara (Uttar Pradesh), in which she submitted that on 18.04.2022 at around 9 a.m. her son was going to Syohara along with his two sisters Beena and Rinky, then aforesaid accused persons abducted him and put him inside their Tata Sumo at gun point. Later on, petitioner’s son was murdered by accused persons, which has been given shape of an accident. Learned amicus curiae strongly submits that the local police has deliberately failed to act on the complaint and has conducted a biased and perfunctory investigation, seemingly to shield the accused persons. The lack of custodial interrogation of the accused despite the availability of specific allegations, as well as the failure to follow up on leads provided by the petitioner, reflect a compromised investigation. In light of this, the amicus curiae prays for the investigation to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in order to secure a fair, impartial, and independent probe. Learned amicus curiae further contended that post mortem report of deceased son of petitioner does not show any crush injuries at body of deceased, which puts serious doubt on the false story of death by accident of Janesh.

4. Leaned State counsel refers to the status report and submits that detailed and fair enquiry has been conducted by SIT, who visited the house of petitioner at vil