IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ramesh Chand ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: April 08, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 08, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Shivam Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition is the second attempt filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.200 dated 07.09.2023, under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala.

2. The last bail plea for grant of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.08.2025.

3. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, Vikas Kumar, has alleged that on account of a prior enmity, the petitioner, along with his co-accused—Devanshu, Mohit, and Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka—committed the murder of his father, Hari Dutt Sharma, by inflicting injuries upon him and forcibly stuffing his mouth with cow dung.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023 and has already undergone substantial incarceration. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that earlier bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.08.2025 and thereafter, there is no substantial progress in the trial and the petitioner has suffered extended incarceration, and even, co-accused of the petitioner has been found innocent, during investigation. Learned counsel has further contended that, despite the complainant and his cousin brother allegedly witnessing the incident in question, it is indeed surprising that they made no effort whatsoever to rescue the deceased. Learned counsel has further contended that even the complainant, in the cross-examination of the complainant, has stated that the petitioner is not having land adjoining to the land of the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued that the incident in question was not a pre-planned one and the same happened in the heat of a moment during a sudden scuffle, and even the petitioner had tried to save the deceased from falling in the cow dung. Learned counsel has further argued that no offence under Section 302 of IPC is, thus, made out.

4.1. Learned counsel has submitted that during trial, the complainant had moved an application under Section 358 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 319 of Cr. P.C.) seeking summoning of additional accused, but the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 03.05.2025 by the Court below, and the revision petition preferred against the petition is pending adjudication before this Court.

4.2. Learned counsel has appended zimni orders with the petition in hand as Annexure P-3 (colly) and contended that the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof is no attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date.

4.3. Learned counsel has goes on to state that no recovery is alleged to have been made from the petitioner and the petitioner has been wrongly implicated, in this case. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02½ years and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars further. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 30.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has submitted that there are serious and grave allegations against the petitioner.

Relevant of the said reply reads thus:

“15. That the role of the present petitioner, in view of the prosecution c