IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 CRM-M-24803-2025 Decided on : 03.11.2025 KHEM KARAN ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Kusum Raj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station Khem Karan, 281 02.06.2024 302, 342, 506 Thanesar Kurukshetra aged about 42 and 34 of IPC years (Subsequently , sections

342, 506, 34 of IPC were deleted and section 201 of IPC was added)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR in question was registered at the instance of complainant Khem Karan, who stated that he is a mason and about nine months earlier, one Rajesh Kumar had allotted him a room in the community centre, where he resided with his family. About nineteen years ago, Khem Karan was married to Savitri, aged 38 years, and three sons were born out of the said wedlock. Their eldest son, Ajay, is employed in a company at Banaras; the second son, Gaurav, is pursuing his studies; and the youngest, Sachin, aged 11 years, resides with the complainant. It is further alleged that a co- villager, Rambir, had been in contact with Savitri for about one and a half years and had taken her to Mohali with the intention of marrying her, where she stayed with him for approximately fourteen months. After her return, Rambir used to call and threaten the complainant on his mobile phone (No. 7015454259) from his own number (No. 9548754664).

As per the allegations, on 01.06.2024 at about 9:00 p.m., after having dinner, complainant was sleeping along with his wife and children in the community centre. Around 12:30 a.m., two boys approached the complainant’s cot; one of them was identified as Rambir, who started beating him, while the other boy locked the room from outside where the children were sleeping. Complainant then saw Rambir and the other boy forcibly taking his wife to the community park. Shortly thereafter, he noticed his wife lying there in an unconscious condition. Complainant immediately called Rajesh Kumar and Rinku telephonically, and several villagers gathered at the spot. They observed that Savitri had been strangulated. Rajesh Kumar then informed the police by dialing

112, and the deceased was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.

3. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that petitioner himself, who is also the informant in the FIR, was unhappy with his wife and had allegedly killed her. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that the material prosecution witnesses, namely Rajesh Kumar (PW2) and Ashok Kumar (PW3), have already been examined and both have turned hostile, which clearly indicates that petitioner did not play any active role in the commission of the alleged offence. Counsel further submits that as per the post-mortem report, all the injuries on the deceased were caused by blunt force, whereas the danda allegedly recovered from the petitioner could not have inflicted such fatal injuries.

4. It is also contended that petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 04 months, and no substantial evidence has been led by the prosecution so far. Therefore, his continued detention serves no fruitful purpose. Learned counsel further points out that as per the status report dated 31.07.2025 (attested on 01.08.2025), there are total eighteen prosecution witnesses, out of which only 08 have been examined, till date. Hence, trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, and petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

5. On the other hand, while opposing the submissions a