IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:14.10.2025 Date of decision:17.10.2025 Vinod ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate and Mr. Shikhar Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.203, dated 06.06.2023, registered under Section 302 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. The adumbrated facts emanating from the record are that on 06.06.2023, on receipt of an information by the police that one Ram Singh r/o Village Chandawali had died, a police party had reached there. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. Buddh Singh brother of victim Ram Singh submitted a written complaint alleging that his brother had rented out 12 rooms in village Chandawali. On 05.06.2023, he had gone to visit those rooms. At about 1:00 A.M., his nephew received a telephonic information from one tenant that the victim was lying in the stairs of those rooms in a critical condition. On being informed by his nephew, the complainant rushed to village Chandawali and found his brother to be lying in unconscious condition. He was brought to the hospital and was declared to be dead. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and as cause of death was opined to be throttling, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered.

3. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, a CCTV camera installed in the vicinity had been given by one Devender, wherein the victim was seen going with the present petitioner on a motorbike on the previous night. The petitioner was joined into investigation and was arrested. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he was occupying a room in the property of the deceased as a tenant. The victim used to harass him by eating his meals on daily basis. He used to hurl the petitioner under the influence of liquor, brought by the money of the petitioner, due to which he remained short of money. He disclosed that with an intent to teach a lesson to the victim, he had reached on his shop on the night of 05.06.2023 and had offered liquor to him. The victim accompanied him to the tenanted premises, wherein they had consumed liquor and when the victim was under the state of intoxication, he had started searching his clothes for the purpose of taking money from the same. The victim had resisted and then he had strangulated him. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offence.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness to the alleged murder of the victim by him. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence to implicate the petitioner with the alleged crime. The CCTV footage, which is claimed to be the primary piece of evidence, cannot be relied upon, since it pertains to 02.06.2023, whereas the incident allegedly took place on the night of 05.06.2023. The prosecution version that wife of the deceased had seen the victim along with him on the previous nigh is not trustworthy, as there is a big time gap between the death of the victim and his being seen with the petitioner. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The prosecution version is highly improbable and unnatural. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused Sanjay and Bharat have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that keeping in view the gravity of