Honour Killing Double Murder Case | 'Offence Strikes Root Of Public Conscience': Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail

Observing that "offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to an accused in a 2021 double murder case allegedly arising out of an honour killing.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the accused.

The case pertains to FIR registered in Punjab's Moga, under Sections 302, 452, 364, 148 and 149 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution case, the deceased Rohtash Singh had solemnised a court marriage with Suman against the wishes of her parents. Apprehending danger, the couple had taken shelter at the house of complainant Sukhdev Singh in village Ronta.

On 17.10.2021 around noon, approximately 15–16 persons allegedly arrived in three vehicles, forcibly entered the complainant's house by scaling the wall, assaulted the couple, abducted them in broad daylight and fled while issuing threats over the love marriage. Later, the bodies of the couple were allegedly found dumped in a street in village Sappan Wali, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.

The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2021. The challan was presented on 31.01.2022. The petitioner's earlier bail plea had been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.01.2024.

Before the Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that no specific overt act had been attributed to him and that he had been roped in on the basis of general allegations of accompanying the main accused. It was contended that he had clean antecedents, had been in custody since November 2021 and that only 2 out of 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, indicating slow progress of trial.

The petitioner relied upon the High Court's earlier ruling in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another (2024:PHHC:054064), wherein it was held that second or successive bail petitions are maintainable if there is a substantial change in circumstances.

The Court noted that while there is no statutory bar to filing successive bail petitions, the sine qua non for entertaining such a plea is the existence of a substantial change in circumstances.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, the Bench reiterated that while deciding bail applications, courts must consider factors such as prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of absconding, possibility of witness tampering and the broader impact on society.

The Court observed that the allegations reflected a planned and coordinated abduction and double murder in the nature of an honour killing. The petitioner was allegedly part of an unlawful assembly which forcibly entered the complainant's house, abducted the couple and facilitated the commission of the crime.

At this stage, the Court held that the argument regarding absence of a specific overt act could not be examined in detail, particularly in view of the invocation of provisions relating to common object and criminal conspiracy.

Gravity Of Offence A Key Factor

The Bench emphasised that the offence was punishable with death or life imprisonment and involved a double murder. It observed that crimes of such nature “strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience”.

The Court further noted that several material witnesses were yet to be examined and the apprehension expressed by the State and the complainant regarding possible influence or intimidation of witnesses could not be said to be unfounded.

Importantly, the Court held that mere prolonged custody or delay in trial cannot, by itself, justify grant of bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences.

While dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within one year. It also directed that progress reports be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court every two months.

The concerned Senior Superintendent of Police was also directed to take necessary steps to ensure effective progress of the case.

Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.

Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab

Click here to read message