IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mahender ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 09.02.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 12.02.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 12.02.2026 website

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adityapal Singla, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J.

1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.85 dated 31.03.2024 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind. The previous petition as filed by him has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2025.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Ravi alleging therein that his youngest sister Pooja was married with the petitioner about 15-16 years back. Due to matrimonial discord between them, disputes used to occur between them frequently. Due to this, the complainant had started residing in the same vicinity to prevent those disputes. In the morning of 31.03.2024, on receipt of an information that his sister Pooja had been assaulted by the petitioner, he reached at her house and found her dead body to be lying there. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Postmortem examination of dead body was conducted as per which the cause of death of victim was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries as mentioned in the report. The petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by saying that on the previous night, on account of a quarrel that had taken place between the victim and himself, he had opened an attack upon her with a chilli crusher (wooden stick/kutka) thereby causing injuries on her chest and head due to which she had died and then he fled from the spot. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was not eye-witness to the occurrence. A false story had been concocted by him. Even the petitioner was not present at the spot. No recovery has been effected at his instance. Disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. There is no scientific evidence in the form of finger prints etc. to connect the petitioner with the offence of murder of the victim. The star witnesses namely, PW-4 Manjit, son of the victim and the complainant have been examined and have not implicated the petitioner in commission of subject offence. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any more. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground for extending benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries with a wooden stick/sotta/kutka to his wife on the intervening night of 30/31.03.2024 leading to her homicidal death. As per the postmortem examination report, the victim had sustained several injuries on her person which included grievous injuries as well over vital