IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244 CRA-S-1812-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.02.2026 Gori Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate and Mr. Ripin Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), whereby an application filed by him under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 34 dated 15.02.2024, registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, had been dismissed.

2. The adumbrated facts, as emanating from the record, are that the victim Gosha Kaur, who was working as a nurse in Tohana, had gone missing since 04.02.2024, and an FIR was registered under Section 346 IPC in this regard. On 15.02.2024, her dead body was found floating near the Ghaggar River at Ratia. The same was taken out. As nobody claimed the dead body, it was cremated after conducting inquest proceedings and post-mortem examination. On 10.07.2024, the respondent No. 2-complainant, who is the father of the deceased, identified his daughter from the photographs and alleged that she had been murdered by the accused Ramphal, who had been pressurising the victim to marry him, but she had refused.

3. As per the further allegations, the accused Ramphal @ Rafi was arrested on 12.02.2024, after being produced by his brother at the police station. He suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the murder of the victim Gosha Kaur, by disclosing that in December, 2023, he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the present appellant to kill the victim, as she had been pressurising him to marry her even after his marriage. As per the disclosure made by him, the appellant had introduced him to a contract killer, namely Jagdish alias Khan, who had agreed to kill the victim in lieu of money. In pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by them, he (Ramphal) had called the victim to Tohana and had taken her in his Swift car. While on the way, the accused Jagdish alias Khan joined them and both of them strangulated the victim with a muffler and a mobile charging wire, thereby causing her death. They concealed the dead body in the boot of the car, which was subsequently packed in a sack and thrown into the Ghaggar River. He further disclosed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs to accused Jagdish. The appellant was nominated as an additional accused and was arrested on 14.02.2024. On interrogation, he too suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands concluded and the appellant filed an application for grant of bail, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated

25.02.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court has ignored material facts of the case and has rejected the application in a mechanical manner. The appellant was not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against unknown persons and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ramphal, which have no evidentiary value in law. No independent or corroborative evidence connects the appellant with the alleged offence. Respondent No. 2 had come to claim the dead body as of his daughter after a gap of about five months. Even DNA report is still awaited. No recovery of a