IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 30^th October, 2025 Pronounced on: 6 ^th November, 2025 Parveen ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vikas, Advocate and Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 1084 dated 12.12.2022 registered under Sections 346 of IPC (Sections 302, 201, 328, 120-B of IPC were added and Section 346 of IPC was deleted) at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 346 of IPC on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Rajat alleging therein that his younger brother Ravi @ Moni had left home on the evening of 11.12.2022 for going to Karnal and had not returned till 12.12.2022. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 18.12.2022, the complainant submitted a written application suspecting that his brother might have been killed by the petitioner since he had seen the petitioner and his sister-in-law Pushpa in an objectionable condition prior to his having gone missing. Offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. The petitioner was joined in investigation. He was formally arrested on 18.12.2022 and interrogated. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that about four years back, he had developed extra marital relationship with Pushpa wife of the victim and the victim had seen them together in objectionable condition about eight months back and he had been extending threats to the petitioner to disclose about the same to his wife and had started blackmailing him by raising demand of money. He had also been assaulting his wife and feeling frustrated, the petitioner had hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused Pushpa to kill the victim. He disclosed that the victim was called by him at his house on the night of 11.12.2022, where he had been killed and his dead body was concealed in a pit which was already got erected by the petitioner in the gher of his house. He also disclosed that he had filled the pit and had plastered the same with cement. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the accused Pushpa was also arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. Neither the complainant-Rajat nor other material witnesses namely PW-4 Champa Devi, PW-5 Purushotam and PW-6 Sanjay have supported the prosecution version. Nor there is any other eye-witness to the occurrence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to connect him with the crime. A false recovery of clothing and body of the deceased has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. The accused Pushpa has been extended benefit of regular bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Sate counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused who is none else than the wife of the victim, is alleged to have called him in his house on the night of 11.12.2022, made him consume liquor laced with some intoxicating substan