Amit vs State Of Haryana

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Since there is no representation on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, with the able assistance rendered by learned State counsel, reply dated 14.08.2026 filed by the State, which is already on record, as well as the pleadings and other material available on the record of the present petition, have been perused.

In brief, FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of complainant Khushboo, who alleged that her elder sister-Kajal, and her husband-Amit (petitioner herein), were residing in the same household at Village Khambi and frequently used to engage in domestic quarrels. On the evening of 26.08.2022, following a quarrel, petitioner allegedly took Kajal with him on a motorcycle, whereupon the family members believed that they had gone to Kokilavan on a pilgrimage. However, at about 10:30-11:00 P.M., petitioner returned home alone and informed the family that Kajal was lying unconscious in the fields. On reaching the spot, family members found Kajal dead, and petitioner allegedly admitted that he had killed her. Thereafter, Village Sarpanch and police were informed. Police took the body into custody and sent the same to GH, Palwal, for post-mortem examination. On the basis of the written statement of the complainant, wherein specific allegations were levelled against the petitioner, present FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned State counsel has taken this Court through the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the petitioner and submits that, upon thorough inspection of the place of occurrence, broken glass bangles and two broken pieces of press wire were recovered from the spot.

After conducting the post-mortem examination, the Medical Officer handed over the post-mortem report dated 27.08.2022 pertaining to deceased Kajal, wherein cause of death was opined to be head injury and its complications. The relevant opinion reads as under:-

Learned State counsel further submits that the aforesaid medical opinion finds corroboration from the disclosure statement attributed to the petitioner, according to which head of the deceased Kajal was struck repeatedly against the roof of the hut and the press wire was also used for strangulating her.

As per the FSL report, blood was detected on Exhibit-1 (wire), Exhibit-2A (iron wire, glass bangle pieces, hair band, etc.) and Exhibit-2B (stone pieces). Motive is found to be of suspecting deceased Kajal having relationship with another person.

However, learned State counsel fairly submits that, out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 5/6 witnesses have been examined so far. Significantly, complainant, who is the sister of deceased Kajal and a material/star witness for the prosecution, did not support the case of the prosecution, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned State counsel and has also gone through the material available on record.

Petitioner is inside jail since 27.08.2022, and has, thus undergone incarceration for almost a period of four years. Case of the prosecution is substantially based upon circumstantial evidence. Trial is yet to conclude and, as noticed hereinabove, only 5/6 out of total 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined, so far. In such circumstances, where the trial is not progressing at the requisite pace, an accused cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witness, i.e. complainant, has not supported the case of prosecution during her deposition.

Having regard to the totality of circumstances, period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, stage of the trial, nature of evidence available on record, and the fact that complainant has not supported the case of prosecution, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

Petition stands disposed of.