Rajesh vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

112+229
CRM-M-48993-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026

Rajesh
...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana
...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG., Haryana.
*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

CRM-44023 of 2026.

Annexures P-10 and P-11 are taken on record subject to just
exceptions.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CRM-M-48993 of 2026.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439
Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 355 dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P-
6), registered at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, under Sections
103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
Sections 302 and 34 IPC, respectively). Charges have also been framed
under Section 61(2) BNS (corresponding to Section 120-B IPC).
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the reply, is that on
11.10.2025, medico-legal information was received from PGIMS, Rohtak,
regarding the admission of Pawan Kumar, who had sustained injuries on
08.10.2025, initially reported to have resulted from an accidental fall. Upon
being contacted by the police, the petitioner Rajesh, brother of the injured,
stated that the occurrence was accidental and that no legal action was
required. Meanwhile, the complainant Sukarma, wife of Pawan Kumar,
submitted a complaint dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), attributing the
assault upon her husband to the petitioner and co-accused Satbir. Pawan
Kumar subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 26.10.2025. An inquiry
conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Safidon, found substance
in the allegations, whereafter the present FIR was registered on 17.11.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated on account of a family dispute. The deceased
Pawan Kumar was his real brother, while the complainant had strained
matrimonial relations with her husband and had initiated proceedings against
him and his family members. It is contended that despite the petitioner
having attended to his brother during hospitalization, he has been implicated
in the present case.
4. Learned counsel submits that the alleged occurrence took
place on 08.10.2025, whereas the deceased expired on 26.10.2025 while
undergoing treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak. The deceased thus survived for
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
approximately eighteen days, during which, according to learned counsel, he
remained conscious and capable of communicating. Despite the same, no
immediate complaint regarding the alleged assault was made to the treating
doctors or police authorities.
5. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the final medical
opinion dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-7), furnished by the Department of
Forensic Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, wherein the cause of death has been
recorded as “perforation peritonitis and its complications”. Although the
treatment record refers to perforation peritonitis secondary to blunt
abdominal trauma, it is contended that the final opinion does not separately
explain the precise mechanism of intestinal perforation or identify the injury
responsible therefor. Reliance has also been placed upon medical literature
(Annexure P-8) to submit that the causal relationship between the alleged
assault and the fatal condition requires appreciation of medical evidence
during trial.
6. It is further submitted that the deceased was initially admitted
to Civil Hospital, Safidon, and subsequently referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, on
11.10.2025. The petitioner, along with his mother and other family
members, is stated to have remained associated with the treatment of the
deceased and attended to his medical needs. Even after his demise, the
petitioner participated in the formalities relating to identification and release
of the dead body.
7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the deposition of
the complainant, Sukarma, examined as PW-3, who was examined and
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
cross-examined before the learned Trial Court on 23.09.2026 (Annexure P-
10). It is submitted that certain admissions made by her during cross-
examination have a material bearing upon the prosecution version,
particularly the circumstances surrounding the video-recorded statement of
the deceased.
8. The prosecution has relied upon two video clips stated to
contain the deceased’s statement naming the petitioner and co-accused
Satbir as the persons responsible for causing injuries to him. During cross-
examination, the recordings contained in a pen drive were played before the
learned Trial Court. The first recording displayed the date and time as
23.10.2025 at 11:26:46, while the second displayed the date and time as
23.10.2025 at 11:34:31.
9. Learned counsel points out that PW-3 admitted that someone
was dictating to the deceased during the recording of the first video clip. She
made a similar admission concerning the second recording and further
acknowledged that the deceased was seen signing blank white papers
therein. It is contended that these circumstances raise questions regarding the
spontaneity and voluntariness of the statement attributed to the deceased.
10. Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 admitted that she
was not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, either near the barber shop
or at the matrimonial house. She also acknowledged having received a
telephone call from her husband on 14.10.2025, during which he did not
disclose any untoward incident having taken place with him.

SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
11. It is further pointed out that PW-3 remained at PGIMS,
Rohtak, from 15.10.2025 to 22.10.2025 and admitted that neither she nor her
husband made any complaint regarding the alleged assault to the treating
doctors, hospital staff or police authorities during that period. She further
stated that the deceased was walking, taking meals and attending to the calls
of nature, and that his condition remained stable during her stay.
12. Learned counsel has also referred to the admission of PW-3
that her initial complaint dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), submitted to the
Superintendent of Police, Jind, did not mention any video recording of the
deceased. The date of occurrence was also mentioned therein as 10.10.2025
instead of 08.10.2025.
13. It is further submitted that during her deposition, PW-3
introduced an allegation that the petitioner had visited PGIMS, Rohtak, and
manhandled the deceased, resulting in loosening of the stitches of his
wound. However, she admitted during cross-examination that this allegation
did not find mention in her initial complaint or earlier statements. She also
acknowledged that the incident had not occurred in her presence and that she
had learnt about it from a relative of another patient, whose name she could
not disclose.
14. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid omissions and
improvements, when considered alongside the circumstances surrounding
the video recordings, assume significance in assessing the prosecution
material at the stage of bail.

SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
15. Learned counsel has further referred to PW-3’s admission
that the petitioner and co-accused Satbir were present at PGIMS, Rohtak,
during her stay with the deceased. It is submitted that this circumstance
lends support to the petitioner’s version regarding his association with the
treatment of his brother.
16. Learned counsel further contends that the disclosure
statements suffered by the petitioner and co-accused Satbir while in police
custody cannot, by themselves, be treated as substantive evidence, except to
the limited extent permissible under law. The evidentiary value of the
pointing-out proceedings would also require consideration during trial.
17. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in
custody since 20.11.2025. Investigation stands completed and the challan
was presented on 18.02.2026. Charges were framed on 21.05.2026, and the
complainant, being the principal prosecution witness, has already been
examined and cross-examined. It is urged that the conclusion of trial is likely
to take time and further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful
purpose.
18. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any
other criminal case, as acknowledged in the State’s reply. He is stated to
have roots in society and responsibility towards his aged mother. The
petitioner undertakes to appear before the learned Trial Court regularly and
not to misuse the concession of bail.
19. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer
for regular bail, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
in nature. The deceased had specifically named the petitioner and co-accused
Satbir as the persons responsible for assaulting him, and his statement was
recorded in video form. The electronic evidence was also subjected to
forensic examination. Learned State counsel has referred to the short reply
dated 24.10.2026, whereby the post-mortem report dated 27.10.2025
(Annexure R-1) and the treatment record (Annexure R-2) have been placed
on record. The post-mortem report records thirteen external injuries, apart
from surgical wounds over the chest and abdominal regions. Reliance is also
placed upon the disclosure statements and pointing-out proceedings. It is
accordingly submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of
regular bail.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the material placed on record. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the significance of
the presumption of innocence and the principle that pre-trial detention ought
not to assume the character of punishment. While considering a prayer for
bail, the nature of the accusation, the material collected against the accused,
the period of custody, the stage of trial and the possibility of interference
with the administration of justice are relevant considerations. The gravity of
the offence, though important, cannot be viewed in isolation.
21. The accusation in the present case is undoubtedly grave,
involving the death of the petitioner’s own brother. The post-mortem report
dated 27.10.2025 (Annexures P-11 and R-1) records thirteen external
injuries, besides surgical wounds, while the final medical opinion dated
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -8-
18.05.2026 (Annexure P-7) attributes the death to “perforation peritonitis
and its complications”. The medical record also refers to blunt abdominal
trauma. These findings constitute material circumstances supporting the
prosecution case and cannot be disregarded.
22. At the same time, the question whether the injuries attributed
to the occurrence occasioned the fatal condition, and the extent of the
petitioner’s responsibility in that regard, would require appreciation of the
medical and other evidence during trial. A detailed examination of the
treatment record at this stage would be neither necessary nor appropriate.
23. The testimony of PW-3 (Annexure P-10) also deserves
consideration. Although she has supported the prosecution case, she
admitted during cross-examination that she was not an eyewitness to the
occurrence and that during her stay at PGIMS, Rohtak, neither she nor the
deceased reported the alleged assault to the treating doctors or police
authorities. Her admissions concerning the deceased’s condition during
hospitalization are also relevant, though their evidentiary effect must be
assessed in the context of the entire prosecution case.
24. Of particular relevance are the circumstances surrounding the
video-recorded statement of the deceased. PW-3 admitted that another
person was dictating to the deceased during the recordings and that he was
seen signing blank white papers in one of them. These admissions bear upon
the manner in which the statement came to be recorded and would require
consideration while assessing its reliability.
25. It is well settled that a dying declaration, if found to be
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -9-
voluntary, truthful and reliable, can form the sole basis of conviction. In
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , and Laxman v. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised
the evidentiary value of a reliable dying declaration. Equally, the
circumstances attending its recording, including any indication of tutoring or
prompting, are relevant to its credibility. The admissions made by PW-3
cannot, therefore, be overlooked, although their ultimate effect must remain
a matter for trial.
26. The omissions and improvements pointed out in the
testimony of PW-3, including the absence of reference to the video
recordings in the initial complaint dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) and the
subsequent allegation of manhandling at the hospital, are further
circumstances requiring consideration. Their significance, however, cannot
be determined conclusively at this stage.
27. The petitioner’s conduct during the hospitalization of the
deceased also forms part of the attending circumstances. The post-mortem
report dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure R-1) records that the dead body was
identified by Rajesh and Satbir, both described as brothers of the deceased.
Their presence at PGIMS, Rohtak, during PW-3’s stay also finds mention in
her cross-examination. While such conduct cannot establish innocence, it
may be considered alongside the other material on record.
28. The petitioner has remained in custody since 20.11.2025.
Investigation stands completed, charges have been framed and PW-3, the
principal prosecution witness, has already been examined and cross-
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48993 of 2026 (O&M) -10-
examined. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, as
acknowledged by the State, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some
time. With the testimony of the principal prosecution witness having been
recorded, the apprehension of interference with her evidence stands
considerably reduced. The remaining concerns can be addressed through
appropriate conditions governing the petitioner’s release.
29. Having considered the nature of the accusation, the material
placed on record, the period of custody already undergone and the stage of
trial, this Court is of the considered view that continued incarceration of the
petitioner is not warranted. The seriousness of the charge has received due
consideration; nevertheless, the circumstances noticed herein, viewed
cumulatively, justify extending the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner.
30. Consequently, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, lest it may prejudice either party during trial, the present petition is
allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon
furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any prosecution
witness, interfere with the remaining prosecution evidence or otherwise
obstruct the progress of the trial.

30.10.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document