Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hem Raj vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-55223-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55223-2025
Hem Raj
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Arshvir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
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. 253 dated 01.09.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, Sections 4, 5, 12, 18 and 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Acts, 2019 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.
2. As per the allegations, on 16.09.2022, dead body of one person was found lying on the road abutting the agricultural land of complainant 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 02:12:51 ::: CRM-M-55223-2025 -2- Dharampal. Injuries were found on the person of the dead body. A case under Section 302 was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. On 17.09.2022, Jagdev Singh along with his family members identified the dead body to be of that his son Mayank. He recorded his statement that the victim was missing since the evening of 15.09.2022 and a missing report had been lodged by them. He also stated that on making inquiries at his own level, he had come to know that his son was taken by the petitioner along with co-
accused Vinayak and their other accomplices, in a verna car and after being murdered, was thrown on the highway to destroy evidence. He disclosed that both the petitioner and Vinayak were missing from their respective houses since the night of 15.09.2022 and their phones were also switched off. The petitioner and co-accused were nominated as such. They were arrested on 21.09.2022. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. The verna car used by them at the time of commission of subject offence had already been got recovered from them in another case registered at police station Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
3. After registration of FIR, Investigation proceedings were initiated. Accused Sham Sharma, Ashwani Kumar and Sunil Kumar were arrested and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. During the course of investigation, on 21.10.2023, complainant Manish Gogna appeared before the Investigating Agency and produced some documents, WhatsApp chats along with a pen-drive containing audio and 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 02:12:52 ::: CRM-M-55223-2025 -3- video recordings of the accused persons. The petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2023. Other co-accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody since long. He is not beneficiary of any transaction. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. Therefore, it is argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the part attributed to the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
7. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 21.11.2023 i.e. for a period of 02 years, 03 months and 29 days. Though the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against him, however, he has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Trial is not likely to be concluded since many prosecution witnesses remained to be examined. As such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. The well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of jail is to 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 02:12:52 ::: CRM-M-55223-2025 -4- secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Taking into consideration the nature of the subject offences, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 23rd March, 2026 Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 02:12:52 :::