221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8104-2025 Date of decision : 27.10.2025 Bharat Kumar @ Bharat Kumar @ Monu ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present third petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.468 dated 15.09.2020, under Sections 346, 364, 302, 420, 201, 34, 419, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad.

2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant, namely, Ravinder Singh. It was alleged that the mobile phone of his brother-in-law Gurbachan Singh Sarna was switch off from so many days. He went to his house to check him but the door was locked. He enquired from the neighbourers and was told that his brother- in-law left his home 20-25 days ago in a car bearing No.DL-3-CC-6104 and thereafter, he has not been seen. Request was made to trace him out. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. During investigation, the investigating agencies found that Gurbachan Singh Sarna was eliminated by the petitioner and the co-accused and thus, the petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2020. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 24.05.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court twice by way of filing of CRM-M-35528-2021 and CRM-M-41104-2024, however, the same were declined by this Court vide orders dated 19.09.2022 and 27.11.2024, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing of present third petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that the case of the prosecution as is evident is totally based on the circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the evidence regarding extra judicial confession and the last seen, cannot be relied upon. He submits that the alleged extra judicial confession is before one Dev Bhardwaj who was examined as PW-3, however, Dev Bhardwaj was the friend of the deceased and has no relationship with the petitioner and thus, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have made any extra judicial confession before this witness. He submits that the security guards, namely, Guddu Kumar and Istikhar Khan have been examined by the prosecution but both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, have been declared hostile. He submits that similarly situated co-accused i.e. Deepak Kumar and Rahul Lakheda have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 31.05.2024 and 05.07.2024, respectively. He submits that as per the settled proposition of law, in a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to prove the chain of evidences which is totally incomplete in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars from last about 05 years but till date the prosecution has not been able to complete the trial. To buttress his arguments, he further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He thus submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the master mind of the whole occurrence. He submits that petitioner was the servant of the deceased and thus, he had the complete information regarding the life of the deceased. He submits that it is the petitioner who in conspiracy with co-accused had eliminated