IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CRM-M-15334-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Amit ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition, which has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 263 dated 23.08.2023, registered under Sections 302, 384 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-E of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal. The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-9124-2024, was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated

05.09.2024.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Sumit alleging therein that victim Sanjay was married with one Reenu. There was matrimonial dispute between the victim and his wife. She had left her matrimonial home on 18.08.2023. Panchayats were also convened but she was not ready to live with the victim. On the morning of 23.08.2023, the dead body of the victim was found hanging in his house. By alleging that on the previous night, three persons had come to the victim in a Creta vehicle and had left after two hours and also by alleging that the family of the wife of the victim had hand in his unnatural death, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The viscera contents were sent for histopathological examination. It was revealed during investigation that the vehicle, which had come to the place of occurrence on the fateful night, belonged to one Surinder Singh and was used by his nephew Sujjal Rathore. On collecting call detail record of accused Sujjal Rathore, he was found to be in contact with co-accused Mehak, Muskan and the present petitioner at the relevant time. Co-accused Sujjal Rathore and Divesh were arrested on 25.08.2023. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements which revealed that co-accused Divesh was having homosexual relationship with the victim from quite some time and he had been extorting money from the victim by extending threats to him to make his videos viral. On the fateful night, the victim had refused to pay money to co-accused Divesh and hence, he was murdered and then hanged with a fan. Both the above named co-accused also disclosed about the participation of the present petitioner in the murder of the victim.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2023. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Presently, he along with the co-accused is facing trial.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 28.08.2023. Trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace. Only one witness has been examined so far. Co-

accused Mehak and Muskan, whose case is at par with that of the petitioner, have been extended benefit of bail. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. No specific act has been attributed to him. The prosecution has relied upon digital footprints in the form of mobile location and disclosure statements of the co-accused for connecting the petitioner with the crime. The disclosure statements of the co-accused cannot be considered to be relevant for the purpose of involving the petitioner in the subject crime and are not legally admissible in evidence. It was only a case of the presence of the petitioner at a wrong place at a wrong time. He did not have any direct role in the incident. He is a student having no criminal antecedents. There is no evidence as to any financial transaction between the victim and the petitioner. Only because of his presence or association wi