211 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.1105 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 Rohit @ Chhota ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for granting him regular bail in case FIR No.292 dated 10.07.2024, under Sections 103(1), 238(A), 61 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Mahesh. It was alleged that on 10.07.2023 at about 10:30 AM, when he was walking on a pathway adjacent to the Gujjar Canal, saw a dead body lying in the canal, covered with clothes and feet tied. After seeing the dead body, he dialed No.112 and informed the police that a dead body was lying in the canal, suspecting that the deceased had been murdered by someone. Thus, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrested on

05.08.2025. Petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2025. Hence, being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail.

3. It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence nor any injury has been attributed to him. He has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the ground that the mobile phone of the deceased was traced and used by the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner came to know about the death of Preetam (deceased) after 03 months of the incident. He has submitted that the allegations of the conspiracy are an afterthought and without any evidence. He thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that during investigation, the mobile phone of the deceased was found to have been used by the present petitioner which established a direct link of the petitioner with the offence. He has submitted that the petitioner was a part of criminal conspiracy and committed murder of the deceased along with the co-accused and threw his body in the canal. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined so far. He thus, submits that no case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered the petitioner was implicated in the present case on the allegation that petitioner in conspiracy along with co-accused has committed murder of the deceased and threw his body in the canal. As submitted, the mobile phone of the deceased was used by the present petitioner and on the basis of the same, his complicity further strengthens. Needless to say that the investigation is at initial stage. As submitted, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined.

6. Keeping in view the above said position, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated a