259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 Nitin @ Nitin Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana and Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present fourth petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.692 dated 11.11.2022, registered under Sections 363, 364, 302, 201 IPC, at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant Nanhe Kumar Pandey. It was alleged that he has two children. Elder daughter Goldie Pandey is aged 17 years, whereas, younger son Kisan Pandey (deceased) is 13 years of age. His son went from home to the shop in Chandila Mandi on 09.11.2022 at around 05:00 p.m.. Thereafter, neither his son reached the shop nor he returned home. They tried their level best to search him, however, failed to find him. Thus, request was made to take legal action. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, the complainant produced a CCTV footage in a pen drive from which complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and thus, the petitioner was arrested on 02.12.2022. On the completion of the investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.01.2025. Earlier also, the petitioner approached this Court thrice by way of filing CRM-M-54431- 2024, CRM-M-4783-2025 and CRM-M-23872-2025, which were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 07.11.2024, 31.01.2025 and 01.09.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present fourth petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that admittedly the case of the prosecution is totally based on the circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of the circumstances is never complete from the evidence produced by thy prosecution. He submits that the dead body of the victim child has also been not recovered by the Investigating Agency till date, and, thus, it is apparent that the case is falsely planted upon the petitioner. He submits that from the CCTV footage recovered by the Investigating Agency in itself is not credible evidence for the implication of the petitioner. He submits that even the motive alleged is weak type of evidence. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last about 3 years. He, thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. It is submitted that it has been revealed during the investigation that the petitioner had illicit relation with the mother of the victim child and the same came to the notice of the helpless child. In order to conceal his illicit relationship with the mother of the child, the child has been done to the death by the petitioner. He submits that from the CCTV footage collected, the petitioner is clearly visible wherein he is taking the child on his motorcycle. It is submitted that last seen evidence of the relevant time is a clinching evidence against the petitioner and dead body of the child also could not be searched till date. On instructions, he has submitted that out of 30 prosecution witnes