207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 19, 2025 Tony Kumar @ Chuha ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.108 dated 24.05.2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Sadar Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that one Kajal had solemnized a love marriage with Sukhwinder Singh but later developed an illicit relationship with Tony Kumar @ Chuha (petitioner herein), who was a close friend of Arun Kumar @ Mungi. On 23.05.2023, Kajal, along with the petitioner and Arun Kumar @ Mungi, conspired to eliminate Sukhwinder Singh. In execution of the conspiracy, during the night intervening 23/24.05.2023, at around 2:00 a.m., Arun Kumar @ Mungi and the petitioner went to Kajal’s residence, where, with her assistance, they murdered Sukhwinder Singh by strangulating him with a rope. At the time of the incident, Arun Kumar @ Mungi restrained Sukhwinder Singh, while the petitioner and Kajal pulled the rope to execute the act. Subsequently, in order to mislead the police and give the appearance of suicide, the accused hanged Sukhwinder Singh with a ‘Chunni’ and even cut it halfway to fabricate evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2023. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the case in hand is not one of the eye witness account, but that of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been primarily implicated into the FIR in question on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years, and the trial is procrastinating. 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, hence, he ought not to be extended concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 18.09.2025 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 26.05.2023, whereinafter investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 21.08.2023. Total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 05 have been fully examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. 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 of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a fut