Amit Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amit Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent 1.

The date when the judgment is reserved 18.05.2026 2.

The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.05.2026 3.

The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.05.2026 4.

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Nihul Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

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 arising out of FIR No.646, dated 03.12.2025, registered under Section 105 of the BNS, at Police Station Sector-58, Fatehabad, District Faridabad.

2.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written

-2complaint submitted by the complainant - Sugni Devi, alleging therein that on the evening of 23.11.2025, she along with her children had gone to Delhi. She came back home at about 06:30 P.M. and found her husband Vivek Kumar lying in an injured condition. On asking, he disclosed that he had been pushed by accused Amit Kumar i.e. the present petitioner and had sustained injuries. She took him to a private doctor and gave medicines to him. On 28.11.2025, her husband complained of severe headache. She took him to the B.K. Hospital, Faridabad from where he had been referred to the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi and during the course of treatment, he had died in the morning of 02.12.2025. While alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the death of her husband, she prayed for taking action in the matter.

3.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted as per which the death of the victim was caused due to sepsis and its sequelae. The injuries sustained were opined to be antemortem in nature. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence had been obtained and someone was found pushing the deceased on the road. The petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting the fact that he had pushed the deceased due to which he had fallen on the road and had sustained injuries. As per the medical opinion given subsequently, the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest and meningoencephalitis.

4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 05 days in reporting

-3the matter to the police, which has not been satisfactorily explained. The victim was a chronic alcoholic. He did not seek any medical treatment for a period of 05 days. The only allegation against him is that he had pushed the deceased though it was not so. Even otherwise, as per CCTV footage, the victim had got up on his own and had gone to his residence without any assistance. The cause of his death is not the injuries but cardiopulmonary arrest and meningoencephalitis which has no direct or proximate nexus with the act allegedly attributed to the petitioner. He is in custody since 06.12.2025. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The allegations against the petitioner are that on 23.11.2025, he had pushed the victim, who had fallen on the road and had sustained injuries. Though, as per the medico legal report, he was chronic alcoholic person, however, the cause of death as per the post mortem examination report is due to sepsis and its sequelae as a result of fall. Some injuries were found on the dead body of the victim. As per the death summary prepared by the doctors of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, on 18.12.2025, the victim had suffered fractures also. As per this report, the victim had gone into

-4cardiopulmonary arrest during the course of treatment and his death was due to that reason as well as meningoencephalitis. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offence as against the petitioner. It is revealed from the order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge that he was clearly seen in the CCTV footage while pushing the victim on the ground. The allegations against him are serious in nature. Taking into consideration the gravity of these allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail at this stage. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. 8.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 20.05.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No