Mohit v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-18060-2026 -1-
!"#"
$%& '()
% *+ ,- ,,
!!! , ).
+/% "
# $%& ' ( ) ) *+*& , -'
./ #
) (( ( # # (01 %2% 3+3**+*$ (
3+&,3/ 34+ 343,&/ 53 *&% ' *+*& , -'
./ " * The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by the complainant-Ramniwas alleging therein that his son Surender was employed in a barber shop. In the afternoon of 09.12.2024, he had come home to have his lunch and left at about 1:30-2:00 P.M., but he did not return home thereafter. In the morning of 10.12.2024, the complainant received information that the dead body of his son was lying in the bushes in
CRM-M-18060-2026 -2the vicinity of Sector 1-4 adjoining New Jawahar Nagar, Hisar. The complainant rushed to the spot and found the dead body of his son lying there. Several injuries were found on the dead body and some blood-stained stones were also lying nearby. He raised suspicion that the present petitioner and coaccused Sahil @ Bacchi, Monu Bihari, Rohit, Kaku, Monu and Vikram, who had previous enmity with his son, might have killed him. 3.
After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body and inquest proceedings were conducted. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and coaccused, Ajay @ Kalu and Suraj @ Golu @ Dholu were joined in the investigation and were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of the victim and demarcated the place of occurrence."
) #
6 7 *&%'
(
6 (
#6 6
1 ( $ 1 ( #
# 6 "
"
6 (
( 6 6 ( 6 #
6 6, # 6 " 6 #6 8
# 6
#
CRM-M-18060-2026 -3- # 6" )
# 6 +*
# 96 6
# (# # 6 #
# (6 6 " 8 6 ( # 9 # # 7
# # 1 (
# 2 # 1 6 ( #
(
(
" 6#
8 :
(
(
6 # 6
6 " (( 6
66
# " # 8
(
# (
6
"
6 # 9 "
# 5 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7.
The petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to have committed the murder of the victim. The petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2024. The co-accused Suraj had been extended benefit of bail mainly on the ground that he was not named in the FIR. As per the status report filed
CRM-M-18060-2026 -4by the respondent-State, the call detail record of the mobile phone, issued in the name of brother of the petitioner but used by him, has revealed that the tower location of the same and of the mobile phones of two co-accused was the same as that of the place of occurrence. This fact is prima facie suggestive of presence of the petitioner at the spot of the occurrence at the relevant time and his involvement therein. As such, it cannot be stated that his case is at parity with the co-accused, who has been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the nature of the accusations as levelled against the petitioner, ; 6
6 6
# 6 6
% 1 #
6 #
9
6 6 4 6 # (
0, 1 & '()