213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Satbir ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents Date of decision: April 08, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 08, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Manjeet Gharhwal, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) for grant of regular bail to the appellant, in case bearing FIR No.147 dated 16.08.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar, Panipat.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the appellant is that the complainant, namely, Suresh Kumar alleged that the appellant along with his co- accused – Pawan had brutally given fist and kick blows to his brother (Naresh) and due to which, he died.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the appellant are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.08.2024. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that there is no specific overt act has been attributed to the appellant. Learned counsel has further argued that alleged act of strangulation is attributed to the co-accused – Pawan. Learned counsel has asserted that the incident in question arose out of a sudden altercation. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per medical and post-mortem report, no specific fatal injury has been attributed to the appellant. Learned counsel has submitted that omnibus and unspecific allegations have been leveled against the appellant.

3.2. Learned counsel has argued that upon culmination of investigation, challan stands presented and the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years. Learned counsel has further contended that, out of a total of 19 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined thus far, and therefore, the delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the appellant.

3.2. Learned counsel has further contended that the police have not conducted a fair, proper and impartial investigation, and the inquiry conducted so far appears to be not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the appellant, and therefore his custodial interrogation is not warranted. It has been further argued that custodial interrogation cannot be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of effecting recovery or for eliciting material information relevant to the investigation. In these circumstances, it is contended that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to arrest or by sending him behind bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 07.03.2026, has opposed the grant of bail to the appellant by arguing that there are serious and grave allegations against the appellant. Relevant of the said status report reads thus:

“3. That the role of the appellant is that he was actively involved in the commission of offence along with co-accused Pawan. On 15.08.2024, after consuming liquor, the appellant was riding his motorcycle when the deceased Naresh stopped them near the village. Upon stopping, a quarrel took place and the appellant got down from the motorcycle and started beating Naresh. Co-accused Paw