Naveen @ Vicky vs State of Haryana

Manisha Batra, J

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 14 dated 03.02.2023 registered under Section 302 of IPC (Section 25 of Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Moohana, District Sonipat.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant-Anju, alleging therein that the petitioner, who is her younger brother-in-law was addicted to liquor. He was unmarried and residing in the same house with her family. He used to quarrel with them. On the night of 02.02.2023, he came home in a drunken condition and created ruckus. He started raising alarm. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law tried to pacify him and then he left home. She alleged that her husband-Lokesh followed the petitioner and brought him home after some time. Her husband was however, badly injured and blood was oozing out of his chest. He was rushed to hospital but succumbed to the injuries and died. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting that it was he, who had stabbed in the chest of the victim with a knife resulting into his death. He also got recovered the knife used by him in occurrence. The investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR as assailant. He has been implicated subsequently by the complainant, who herself is a female of doubtful antecedents. It was her second marriage with the victim. She had even lodged a case under Section 376 of IPC against one Satish Kumar during the existence of her first marriage. It was she who had stabbed the victim and this fact was disclosed by the victim himself to his brother Parveen while on the way to hospital. The complainant has already been examined. Aryan, who is her real son and step-son of the victim, has not supported the prosecution version. There is nothing to connect him with the murder of his brother. He had no motive to do so. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that the he deserves to be released on bail.

Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the complainant has supported the prosecution version. The weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the victim. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner is alleged to have killed his brother by striking blows with the knife. The knife has been recovered from him. The complainant Anju, who was an eye-witness to the occurrence, has supported the prosecution version. Other material witnesses are yet to be examined. The allegations against him are serious in nature. Keeping in view of the gravity thereof, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.