IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.10.2025 Meeta Bhatia ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.63 dated 12.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

103(1), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station BPTP, Faridabad, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 11.05.2025, ASI Surender Kumar, alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty at DPS Chowk, when a telephonic message via ERV-193 reported that a woman had thrown her two year old child into the Agra canal. ASI Surender Kumar and his team proceeded to BPP Chowk, where complainant Kapil Lukra, son of Puran Lal Lukra, resident of House No.2585, 2^nd Floor, H-Block, Sainik Colony, Faridabad submitted an application. He stated that he had been married to Megha for about 16 years and had two children, a daughter namely Yanya aged 14 years and a son namely Tanmay @ Ronik aged 02 years. On 11.05.2025, around 05:00 PM, his wife Megha left the house with Tanmay and he was unable to trace them. The complainant alleged that his wife Megha used to take Tanmay to a tantrik i.e. the present petitioner namely Meeta Bhatia, who referred to the child as ‘son of jin’ and warned that he would destroy the entire family. He further alleged that his wife Megha, in criminal conspiracy with the present petitioner had thrown his son namely Tanmay into the Agra Canal near BPT Bridge, resulting in his murder. Based on this complaint, the instant FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. On 13.05.2025, the dead body of Tanmay was recovered from Agra Canal. The petitioner and co- accused were arrested on the same day and made disclosure statements admitting involvement. The investigation was completed and the final report was submitted to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and was arrested without any direct or circumstantial evidence connecting her to the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused i.e. mother of the deceased, which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and was recorded under undue influence. It has been further submitted that the challan has been filed on 08.08.2025 contains no incriminating material or corroborative evidence against the petitioner. Furthermore, there is neither recovery nor motive attributed to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was not in contact with the co-accused since 07.04.2025 as she had travelled to her hometown with her family. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is a result of an attempt by the co-accused and complainant to shift the blame for the murder of the child. Learned counsel has further submitted that no useful purpose would be served for continued incarceration of the petitioner as there is no likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the remaining prosecution evidence. On the strength of aforesaid submission, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature involving the brutal murder of a 02 years old child. Learned State counsel has iterated that during investigation sufficient material has come on record indicating that the petitioner acting as a tantrik has influenced the mind of the co-accused. It has been further argued that the role of the petitioner in provoking and