##PAGE1##

CRM-M-15605-2026

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

229 CRM-M-15605-2026 Decided on : 17.04.2026

Kusum @Kushum ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present: Mr. Sanchit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.454 dated 23.09.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)

of , Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The abovementioned FIR has been lodged in Police Station City Hisar. Succinctly the allegations contained in the FIR are that the petitioner was member of a group, and hatched a conspiracy to kill Vijay

Ahuja and executed the abovementioned plan.

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

2026.04.17 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15605-2026

2

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Prerna’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that the marriage of her brother, namely ‘Amardeep’ was solemnized with ‘Karishma’, and that after marriage, ‘Kusum @Kushum’ (the petitioner herein) and the step-father of ‘Karishma’ used to harass the complainant’s father, namely ‘Vijay Ahuja’ and that ‘Krishma’ had sold the gold jewellery gifted to her by her father-in-law ‘Vijay Ahuja’. According to complainant on 23.09.2024, her father had gone on a two-wheeler to pay obeisance in a temple and later on, she came to know that he had been attacked by some unknown persons and was admitted in hospital. While raising a finger of accusation towards ‘Karishma’ and her parents, the

complainant requested for action against them.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate as well

as status report. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that present case is a blind murder case, wherein there is no direct evidence to establish link between the commission of offence and the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence to prove that the petitioner had got any kind of nexus, whatsoever, with the abovementioned

crime.

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

2026.04.17 20:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15605-2026

3

7. In addition to above, it has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a female having responsibility of about four years old child and that she has already suffered incarceration for a period of one year six months and eighteen days. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near

future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.

8. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that there is direct link between the commission of offence and the petitioner, as the petitioner was in touch of the assailants at the time of incident. It has also been argued by learned State Counsel that in addition to disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, there are other supporting circumstances, i.e. plot to kill the victim, and takeover his property. As per learned State Counsel the above facts prove the involvement of the petitioner in the

commission of offence.

9. The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the sole motive behind the commission of crime was to grab the property of deceased, as the deceased is survived by a divorcee daughter, who is suffering from depression, and a son having very lo