229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 16, 2025 Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.197 dated 13.05.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that on 13.05.2024, at around 9:00 A.M., Nand Kishore (since deceased) had gone to Rohtak in a TATA Punch car bearing registration number HR11P-4696, owned by Sunny, a friend of Yogesh, for some work. Later the same day, at about 6:00 P.M., his body was discovered lying in the bushes near a kucha road adjacent to Butana Canal, and the said car also found parked nearby. The deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his head, forehead, left eye, and the back side of his left ear and face. In his supplementary statement, the complainant (brother of the deceased) disclosed that Nand Kishore had financial dealings with several individuals and had advanced a sum of `2,00,000 to Rakesh (petitioner herein), who was running a nut-bolt factory under the name ARB Tools. According to the complainant, Nand Kishore had informed him that the petitioner had taken money from him, and on the day of the incident, he had gone to Rohtak to recover the said amount. Based on this, suspicion was raised that Rakesh (petitioner herein), in conspiracy with others, had murdered Nand Kishore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was lodged at the instance of FIR/complainant/ brother of the deceased. It is only in the supplementary statement recorded after some days that the name of the petitioner figured. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is in custody for more than 02 years and prime private prosecution witnesses stand examined. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further argued that there are Call Detail Records (CDR) available, which shows that location of the petitioner and the deceased was at the same place. Learned State counsel has also argued that there is CCTV footage available, which clearly shows complicity of the petitioner qua offence in question. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 13.09.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 05.08.2023. Total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 19 have been examined till date. It is not in dispute that prime private prosecution witnesses, including the FIR/ complainant/ brother of the deceased stand examined. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood