Punjab & Haryana High Court denies regular bail in murder and robbery case, cites gravity of offence and recovered evidence
Case Name: Kavita @ Kiran v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-42111-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the regular bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner accused of conspiracy, murder, and robbery. The Court held that the allegations were grave, involving premeditated killing of a taxi driver for looting his vehicle and valuables, and that recovery of the car and mobile phone at the petitioner’s instance corroborated her role. It ruled that prolonged incarceration could not override the seriousness of the offence, relying on Parmod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India (2008) 63 ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 242, and State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 4 RCR (Criminal) 280 (SC).
Summary: The FIR No. 391 dated August 12, 2021, registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, was filed after the discovery of the body of Honey Singh, a taxi driver who had gone missing while driving a vehicle from Hisar to Delhi. Investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with co-accused Manoj and Mulayam @ Mayank, had conspired to hire the taxi, rob the driver, and subsequently kill him. The victim was strangulated, robbed of his wallet, and his vehicle was stolen and later recovered.
The petitioner sought bail, contending false implication, four years of custody, absence of direct evidence, and that the SIM card used to contact the victim was not in her name. The State opposed, citing strong circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the car and mobile phone at her instance, and argued that her release could hamper the trial.
Justice Manisha Batra observed that evidence collected by the investigation established the petitioner’s active role in the conspiracy. The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offence and the recovery of incriminating material outweighed arguments for release on the basis of custody duration or absence of eyewitnesses. It reiterated that prolonged detention in heinous offences like murder cannot itself justify bail.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner’s role was integral to the conspiracy and that the evidence warranted continued custody. It clarified that the observations made were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.