Rajesh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 RAJESH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C (now under Section 483 of BNS) in case FIR No.437 dated 06.11.2024, registered under sections 103(1), 3(5), 238A, 61(2), 249A, 50 of BNS Act, 2023 (old Sections 302,34,201,120B, 212,110 of IPC) registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Police Hansi, Haryana. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the son of the petitioner, namely Anoop, along with co-accused Anshu, had an altercation with Jaibir (deceased), which ultimately escalated into a quarrel. Thereafter, they threw Jaibir on the ground, hit his head with a stick, and stabbed him several times on the chest, resulting in his death. Subsequently, they threw his dead body into a well situated in the agricultural fields. During the course of investigation, accused Anoop made a disclosure statement that he had informed his father (the present petitioner) and mother about the commission of the murder, and they had advised him not to disclose the same to anyone else, therefore destroying the evidence of a harbouring affinitive.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specify role has been attributed to her. He further submits that petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Anoop which is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that the petitioner in custody since 09.09.2025 and prayer has been made for grant of regular bail. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months; apart from disclosure statement there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and further considering that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take a considerable time to conclude, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial, as continued detention would not serve the ends of justice.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

-39.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24.04.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No