IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 Satbir Singh @ Sattu ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the complainant (through V.C.).

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. This is the second petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 19 dated 17.1.2023 under Sections 302, 304-B and 34 IPC (Sections 302 and 34 IPC were deleted later on), registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant being the husband of the deceased, alleging that the deceased had been subjected to harassment and cruelty at the hands of the petitioner and his family members, which led to the unfortunate death of the sister of the complainant. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence on record that point towards the complicity of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that non specific and baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.

2025.12.05 16:47 Rather, there exits material contradictions in the various statements made by the complainant. Furthermore, cognizance was not even taken against the parents of the petitioner, qua whom similar allegations were levelled. Reliance in this regard is placed on the order dated 29.2.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, which is presented before this Court, and thus is taken on record. Learned counsel further lays emphasis on the prolonged custody period of 02 years, 10 months and 05 days already undergone by the petitioner as an undertrial, despite no charge having been conclusively proved against him. It is further submitted that the first bail petition filed by the petitioner bearing CRM-M-14641-2024 was dismissed by this Court on 25.7.2024 on the sole ground that at that time, the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined. However, now the material prosecution witnesses stand examined. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 10 months and 05 days, and there is no other case registered against him.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They submit that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence.

4. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 10 months and 05 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 08.5.2023 and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, 06 have been examined till date and 04 have been given up. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 08.5.2023 and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 years, 10 months and 05 days, and there is no other criminal case registered against him. The veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused-petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy tr