IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

3 CRM-M-42383-2025 Reserved on : 28.08.2025 Pronounced on : 29.08.2025 Krishma @Karishma ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ved Prakash, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, FIR bearing No.454 dated 23.09.2024 has been lodged in Police Station City Hisar. The petitioner has been arrested in the abovementioned case on 26.09.2024. The application for bail filed by the petitioner before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar has been dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025.The petitioner is in custody since then and therefore, seeking the concession of bail during the course of trial.

2. The abovementioned FIR has been lodged in Police Station City Hisar. Succinctly the allegations contained in the FIR are that the petitioner was member of a group, and hatched a conspiracy to kill Vijay Ahuja and executed the abovementioned plan.

3. The allegations of the prosecution, as contained in the FIR, are that the abovementioned FIR came into being on 30.09.2024 on the complaint of Prerna D/o deceased. The abovenamed complainant had stated that the marriage of her brother Amardeep was solemnized with the petitioner Krishma and that after marriage, the mother and step-father of Karishma used to harass complainant’s father Vijay Ahuja and that Krishma even sold the gold jewellery gifted to her by her father-in-law Vijay Ahuja. According to the complainant on 23.09.2024, her father had gone on a two- wheeler to pay obeisance in a temple and later on, she came to know that he was attacked by somebody and admitted in hospital. While raising a finger of accusation towards the petitioner, the complainant had requested for taking action against the petitioner and her parents.

3. Heard.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that present case is a blind murder case, wherein there is no direct evidence to establish link between the commission of offence and the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence to prove that the petitioner had got any kind of nexus whatsoever with the abovementioned crime.

5. In addition to above, it has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a female having about one-and-a-half year old child and that she has already suffered incarceration for being in custody for a period of almost one year. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has argued that there is direct link between the commission of offence and the petitioner, as the petitioner was in touch of the assailants at the time of incident. It has also been argued by learned State Counsel that in addition to disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, the circumstances, wherein the petitioner sold her gold ornaments without telling her father-in-law (the deceased) and usurped the money for the execution of plot to kill him, in itself, are great indicator to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence.

7. Learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the sole motive behind the commission of crime was to grab the property of deceased, as the deceased is survived by a divorcee daughter, who is suffering from depression, and a son having very low IQ. As per learned State Counsel if the benefit of bail is afforded to the petitioner, she will put il