IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.12.2025 RITIK ..PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

*******

H.S. GREWAL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0035 dated 28.01.2025 under Sections 127(6) BNS (offence u/s 140(1), 238(1), 103(1), 3(5) BNS-2023 added lateron vide GD No. 028, dated

04.02.2025), registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.2025, one Rajender s/o Ram Naryan filed a report regarding the missing of his brother Subhash s/o Ram Naryan. Subsequently on the same day, the dead body of Subhash was recovered from a canal. On 04.02.2025, an extra-judicial confession was allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused before one Bhoop Singh, former Sarpanch who thereafter deposed before the police on the same day. In his statement, Bhoop Singh deposed that Vishnu, Laden and Ritik-the present petitioner had jointly confessed that they had murdered their uncle and had disposed of the dead body in the canal. Except for alleged extra-judicial confession purportedly made before the said Bhoop Singh, there is no other evidence available on record to corroborate the prosecution case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery is stated to have been effected from the present petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate dated 08.12.2025 of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for last more than 10 months. He further contends that the petitioner has been involved in various other cases, mostly pertaining to offences under Section 379 IPC and the trial is yet to commence.

5. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6. In view of the above though the petitioner is involved in two other NDPS cases, considering that the petitioner is in custody for more than 10 months, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8. It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S. GREWAL)

December 09, 2025 JUDGE Poonam Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No