IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 Date of decision: May 01, 2025 INDERSAIN @ INDER .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Mahendra Singh Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. The instant petition is the second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.140 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station GRP Faridabad, District GRP Ambala (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.10.2022. The case against him hinges solely on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the dead body of Mahipal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was recovered by the police near the railway tracks. The hands and mouth of the deceased were tied, his face defaced, and an FIR was then lodged against unknown persons.

Subsequently, the deceased was identified by his brother.

3. During the course of investigation, one co-accused Ritu (who has since been enlarged on bail) was arrested. Allegedly, during her interrogation, the name of the petitioner surfaced as one of the perpetrators.

It has been urged that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner along with his maternal uncle Lal Prabhakar @ Raja and Ritu, conspired and executed the murder.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the motive imputed by the prosecution is highly improbable and artificial. According to the prosecution, co-accused Raja had solemnized marriage with accused Ritu about 10-11 years ago, but after 5- 6 years, Ritu married the deceased, which allegedly cause co-accused Raja to harbour animosity towards the deceased. As per plan, on 30.09.2022, co-accused Ritu called the deceased to her rented premises under the pretext of engaging in physical relations, whereupon co-accused Raja assaulted and slit the throat of the deceased. Thereafter, allegedly the petitioner, along with both the co-accused, tied the hands and neck of the deceased, transported his body on a motorcycle and dumped it by the railway tracks. Allegedly, the petitioner and co-accused Raja struck the face of the deceased with a large stone to ensure his death. The said stone was recovered from the spot and motorcycle used in the commission of the crime was also allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

5. It has been further argued that the prosecution has placed reliance on the mobile phone location records and allegedly, the mobile phones of all the three accused including the petitioner were traced to the same location as the deceased at the relevant time. Further, the blood stains found on the recovered huge stone matched the blood group of the deceased (Group B), as per the FSL Report (Annexure R-1).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no witness of last seen, no independent recovery of any weapon of offence from the petitioner, and the only recovery is of a stone with blood stains found near the body, which is not specifically attributable to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that no fingerprints were lifted from the stone, and none of the forensic findings conclusively link the petitioner to the murder in question.

7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the material witnesses namely PW Renu and PW Manoj (brother of the deceased) have already been examined, and only 2 out of 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined to date. The trial is, therefore, likely to take considerable time to conclude. A prayer has therefore been made for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions, has opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel