IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108)

CRM-M-61116-2024 Date of Decision:- 01.12.2025 Aman ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Mr. A.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate with Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 343 dated 27.09.2022 under Sections 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the basis of an absolutely concocted story. It is contended that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from seizures- a Neurological condition involving sudden abnormal electrical activity in the brain and, on earlier occasions as well, the petitioner had taken her to the hospital due to the said ailment. Learned counsel further relies upon Annexure P-6, to demonstrate that the deceased had a history of seizures and also emphasized that the cause of death was cardiac arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no injury was inflicted by the petitioner and the alleged injuries suffered by the deceased was solely on account of the seizures suffered by her, and therefore, no overt act can be attributed to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the material witnesses have already been examined and the petitioner has been in custody for more than three years. It is further submitted that the trial is not progressing and is being unnecessarily delayed at the instance of the complainant, who have to be summoned through bailable and non-bailable warrants.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by the counsel for the complainant, submits that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. Most shockingly, when the complainants were informed by the father of the petitioner that their daughter was unwell, upon reaching there, it was found that the door of the room was locked from the outside and it was the deceased’s brother who took her to the hospital, and during her brief moments of consciousness, the deceased disclosed to the complainant that the petitioner and his family members had inflicted injuries to her.

5. Learned State counsel further relies upon the post-mortem report as well as the opinion of the Board of three Doctors from the General Hospital, Hisar, who have concluded that the cause of death in the present case was complications arising from a head injury. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, further submits that a head injury itself can trigger seizures, and therefore, the medical evidence supports the prosecution version. It is contended that there are specific and clear-cut allegations, duly supported by cogent evidence, against the petitioner.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased took place on 27.03.2022, and she died an unnatural death on 27.09.2022 i.e. exactly completion of six months of the marriage, the onus heavily relies upon the petitioner to prove the contrary with a satisfactory explanation, which the petitioner has failed to do.

7. Learned State counsel has further apprised the Court that the trial is being conducted under the Action Plan Scheme and is progressing expeditiously, and that there are strong likelihood of the petitioner’s conviction.

8. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

01.12.2025 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No