Sumit v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-65258-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (256) CRM-M-65258-2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Sumit ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 138 dated 09.6.2025 under Sections 109(1), 115, 3(5), 351(3) and 85 of BNS, 2023, (Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 was deleted and Section 80 of BNS, 2023 has been added later on), registered at Police Station Purani Sabzi, District Rohtak.

2.

Mr. Mohit Aneja, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant and files his power of attorney, which is taken on record. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR, which was registered after a delay of five days on the statement of the father of the deceased. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record that points towards the complicity of the petitioner, who has undergone custody period of 05 months and 17 days. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned State counsel have vehemently opposed the present petition. Gurpreet Singh 2025.12.10 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-65258-2025 -25.

Heard.

6.

A perusal of the case file reveals that when this Court was not inclined to grant the relief sought for, the first petition seeking regular bail bearing No. CRM-M-60469-2025, was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-4). Now the second petition for regular bail has been filed within a period of one month without there being any change of circumstances.

7.

A prima facie grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of subjecting his wife to cruelty, harassment and consistent demand for dowry, who died shortly within four months of her marriage with the petitioner, under unnatural circmstances. It is the specific allegation that on an earlier occasion, a panchayat had also been convened to address the issue of cruelty that the daughter of the complainant was being subjected to. It also also been alleged by the complainant that two distress calls were made by the deceased to her mother, narrating the atrocities that she was being subjected to by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 9.

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

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE December 09, 2025 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Gurpreet Singh 2025.12.10 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh