AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.172 dated 24.06.2025 registered under Section 105 of BNS, at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on the basis of suspicion of the father of the deceased. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the compliance-cum-status report dated 25.07.2026 filed in Court today, relevant whereof reads thus:
"6.That medical opinions regarding the injuries of both the deceased and the petitioner were obtained. The medical officer opined that the fatal intracranial haemorrhage suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause death. While the doctor noted that the possibility of injuries being caused by a roadside accident or physical assault could not be ruled out, the circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies corroborated that the injuries were a direct result of a motor vehicle accident.
7.That based on the comprehensive evidence collected-including electronic records, mechanical analysis, medical reports, and witness statements-the SIT has concluded that the death of Mukesh Kumar was caused by injuries sustained in a roadside accident, and the allegations of a pre-planned murder are not substantiated."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the case in hand, in fact, a simpliciter road-side accident, which has been given the colour of a criminal case, involving higher degree of criminality, primarily on the basis of the suspicion of the father of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than one year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Per contra, learned State counsel while raising arguments in tandem with the compliance-cum-status report dated 25.07.2026, has vociferously opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2025 and is stated to be in continuous custody since then. It is not disputed before this Court that upon culmination of investigation challan was presented on 08.09.2025, wherein total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which none has been examined, as charges are yet to be framed.
Keeping in view the factual entirety of the case in hand; especially the averments contained in paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the compliance-cum-status report dated 25.07.2026, the petitioner already having suffered incarceration for more than one year & the conclusion of trial not being likely to culminate in the near future, this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
The rival contentions raised at the Bar, give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of the trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
Further, as per custody certificate filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year & 25 days and is not shown to be involved in any other FIR/case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, and those which may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.