Rajat Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 RAJAT KUMAR ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.386 dated 16.12.2024 registered under Sections 103 and 61 of BNS (Sections 302 and 120-B IPC) at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was submitted by the complainant alleging that his son Deepankar was called by Ankit Kumar @ Chautala on 30.05.2024, after which he went missing and was later found dead on 31.05.2024 near the Barsot river bridge. Initially, suspicion was raised against Ankit Kumar. However, during investigation, the police declared Ankit Kumar innocent and implicated the petitioner on the basis of alleged call detail records of the deceased. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has emerged on the basis of his own disclosure statement that an altercation took place between

them and he hit the deceased in anger due to being in intoxicated state. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Dr. Malvika Singh, D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Suraj Chawla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Naraingarh, District Ambala and custody certificate in the Court, which are taken on record. She further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08 days.

6.

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

7.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from suspicion and disclosure statement of the petitioner himself, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; no recovery has been effected from the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 08 days; he is not involved in any other case; trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10.

It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 11.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(H.S.GREWAL) 25.05.2026 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No