CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH 288 CRM-M-49340-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.20266 RAJESH KUUMAR SHARMA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate fofor the petitioner MMs. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advvocate General, Punjab MMr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate foor the complainant * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant one is the second ppetition filed by the petitionerr under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case aarising out of FIR No.92 datedd 24.06.2023 reggistered under Section 346 of IPPC (Sections 302, 201, 148, 1499 and 120B of IIPC added later on and Section 346 of IPC deleted later on) att Police Stationn Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. His previous petitionn bearing No.CCRM-M-48144-2024 was dismi ssed by this Court vide orderr dated 03.12.20024 by making the following obsservations :-TThe petitioner is alleged to be a ppart of the conspiracy which wass h atched by the accused Gurpreett Singh and his wife Khushdeepp KKaur to commit murder of the viictim Sukhjit Singh to show it aa caase of accidental death of thhe accused Gurpreet Singh byy AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 2

p rojecting the dead body to be that of Gurpreet Singh with ann inntention to get money from the Insurance Policies taken in thee n ame of the accused Gurpreet Sinngh. The allegations against thee p etitioner are serious in nature. He is also alleged to be one off thhe persons present along with thhe co-accused Khushdeep Kaurr a t the time when the last rites of the body of the victim weree p erformed while showing the samme to be the dead body of the co--a ccused Gurpreet Singh, who was actually alive. There iss n othing on record to suggest thhat there would be any unduee ddelay in conclusion of the trial. TTaking into the consideration thee n ature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner whichh p rima facie suggest his complic ity in hatching a conspiracy too coommit the said offences by thhe co-accused, the quantum off seentence which the conviction maay entail and the attendants factss a nd circumstances but without mmeaning to make any commentss o n the merit of the case, I am off the considered opinion that thee p etition does not deserve to be alllowed. Accordingly, the same iss ddismissed.

2. Itt is argued by learned counsell for the petitioner that he hass suffered proloonged incarceration for a period oof over 03 years and 02 months.. The chances oof conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak as only 100 out of 59 proosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His furtherr incarceration is not going to serve any frruitful purpose. He has beenn AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 3 implicated in tthis case on the allegations of paart of conspiracy and was not thee actual assailaant. His prolonged incarc eration militates against hiss fundamental rright guaranteed under Article 221 of the Constitution of India.. The delay in cconclusion of the trial is not attrributable to him. He is ready too abide by the tterms and conditions to be impoosed upon him. Each day spentt by him in custtody has furnished him a fresh reeason to seek concession of baill afresh. It is, thherefore, argued that he deservess to be extended benefit of bail. 3. PPer contra, learned State counsell assisted by learned counsel forr the complainaant has argued that taking into cconsideration the gravity of thee allegations as levelled against the petitionerr and the fact that this petitionn being a successsive one is not maintainable, thhe petitioner does not deserve too be given conceession of bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties. 5. TThe petitioner is alleged to be a ppart of the conspiracy which wass hatched by thee co-accused to commit the murrder of the victim and to show itt as a case of aaccidental death of accused Guurpreet Singh and to get moneyy from the Insurrance Company. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for aa period of morre than 03 years, 02 months andd 03 days. The trial is still likelyy to take considderable time to conclude as subbstantial number of prosecutionn witnesses aree still remained to be examinned. So far as question off maintainabilityy of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly it is a successivee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 4

petition. The well-settled proposition of laww is that if there is some drasticc change in thee circumstances, the successive petition is maintainable. It iss equally well settled that deprivation of perrsonal liberty without ensuringg speedy trial iss not in consonance with the rigght guaranteed by Article 21 off the Constitution of India. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State off Maharashtra and another 2024(9) SCC 8133, the Hon’ble Apex Court hadd observed that howsoever, serious a crime maay be, an accused has a right too speedy trial. BBail is not to be withheld as a puunishment. It was also observedd that if the Statte or any prosecuting agency inccluding the Court concerned hass no wherewithaal to provide or protect the funddamental right of an accused too have a speedyy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then thee State or any oother prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail onn the ground thaat the crime committed, is seriouus. Article 21 of the Constitutionn applies irrespeective of the nature of the crimee. It is also well-settled that thee object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and thee proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the baill should be graanted or refused or whether it is probable that the party willl appear to takee its trial and it is indisputable thhat bail is not to be withheld as aa punishment.

6. RReliance can also be placed uppon the observations made byy Hon’ble Supreeme Court in Gurbaksh Singh SSibba v. State of Punjab, (1980)) 2 SCC 565 too the effect that the object of baail is to secure the attendance off the accused att the trial and the proper test to bbe applied in the solution of thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 5 question whetther the bail should be granteed or refused or whether it iss probable that the party will appear to take itss trial and it is indisputable thatt the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

7. SSo far as the question of prolongged incarceration and inordinatee delay in concllusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inn Satender Kummar Antil v. Central Bureau of IInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 511 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. whichh requires interr alia the accused to be enlargged on bail if the trial is nott conclude withhin specified period, would applyy to under-trial prisoners as welll in the absencee of any specific provisions. Thhe petitioner is in custody sincee 05.07.2023. Only 10 out of 59 prosecuti on witnesses have since beenn examined. Thhere is nothing on record to shoow that delay in any manner iss attributable too him. Taking into consideraation the period spent by thee petitioner in cuustody, the fact that trial is not l ikely to be conclude shortly, thee clean antecedeents of the petitioner and the faccts and circumstance peculiar too this case, the ppetition is allowed and the petitiooner is ordered to be released onn bail subject tto his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to thee satisfaction oof the learned Chief Judiciaal Magistrate/trial Court/Dutyy Magistrate conncerned. 8. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 6 9. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 10.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH 288 CRM-M-49340-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.20266 RAJESH KUUMAR SHARMA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate fofor the petitioner MMs. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advvocate General, Punjab MMr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate foor the complainant * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant one is the second ppetition filed by the petitionerr under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case aarising out of FIR No.92 datedd 24.06.2023 reggistered under Section 346 of IPPC (Sections 302, 201, 148, 1499 and 120B of IIPC added later on and Section 346 of IPC deleted later on) att Police Stationn Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. His previous petitionn bearing No.CCRM-M-48144-2024 was dismi ssed by this Court vide orderr dated 03.12.20024 by making the following obsservations :-TThe petitioner is alleged to be a ppart of the conspiracy which wass h atched by the accused Gurpreett Singh and his wife Khushdeepp KKaur to commit murder of the viictim Sukhjit Singh to show it aa caase of accidental death of thhe accused Gurpreet Singh byy AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 2

p rojecting the dead body to be that of Gurpreet Singh with ann inntention to get money from the Insurance Policies taken in thee n ame of the accused Gurpreet Sinngh. The allegations against thee p etitioner are serious in nature. He is also alleged to be one off thhe persons present along with thhe co-accused Khushdeep Kaurr a t the time when the last rites of the body of the victim weree p erformed while showing the samme to be the dead body of the co--a ccused Gurpreet Singh, who was actually alive. There iss n othing on record to suggest thhat there would be any unduee ddelay in conclusion of the trial. TTaking into the consideration thee n ature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner whichh p rima facie suggest his complic ity in hatching a conspiracy too coommit the said offences by thhe co-accused, the quantum off seentence which the conviction maay entail and the attendants factss a nd circumstances but without mmeaning to make any commentss o n the merit of the case, I am off the considered opinion that thee p etition does not deserve to be alllowed. Accordingly, the same iss ddismissed.

2. Itt is argued by learned counsell for the petitioner that he hass suffered proloonged incarceration for a period oof over 03 years and 02 months.. The chances oof conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak as only 100 out of 59 proosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His furtherr incarceration is not going to serve any frruitful purpose. He has beenn AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 3 implicated in tthis case on the allegations of paart of conspiracy and was not thee actual assailaant. His prolonged incarc eration militates against hiss fundamental rright guaranteed under Article 221 of the Constitution of India.. The delay in cconclusion of the trial is not attrributable to him. He is ready too abide by the tterms and conditions to be impoosed upon him. Each day spentt by him in custtody has furnished him a fresh reeason to seek concession of baill afresh. It is, thherefore, argued that he deservess to be extended benefit of bail. 3. PPer contra, learned State counsell assisted by learned counsel forr the complainaant has argued that taking into cconsideration the gravity of thee allegations as levelled against the petitionerr and the fact that this petitionn being a successsive one is not maintainable, thhe petitioner does not deserve too be given conceession of bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties. 5. TThe petitioner is alleged to be a ppart of the conspiracy which wass hatched by thee co-accused to commit the murrder of the victim and to show itt as a case of aaccidental death of accused Guurpreet Singh and to get moneyy from the Insurrance Company. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for aa period of morre than 03 years, 02 months andd 03 days. The trial is still likelyy to take considderable time to conclude as subbstantial number of prosecutionn witnesses aree still remained to be examinned. So far as question off maintainabilityy of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly it is a successivee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 4

petition. The well-settled proposition of laww is that if there is some drasticc change in thee circumstances, the successive petition is maintainable. It iss equally well settled that deprivation of perrsonal liberty without ensuringg speedy trial iss not in consonance with the rigght guaranteed by Article 21 off the Constitution of India. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State off Maharashtra and another 2024(9) SCC 8133, the Hon’ble Apex Court hadd observed that howsoever, serious a crime maay be, an accused has a right too speedy trial. BBail is not to be withheld as a puunishment. It was also observedd that if the Statte or any prosecuting agency inccluding the Court concerned hass no wherewithaal to provide or protect the funddamental right of an accused too have a speedyy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then thee State or any oother prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail onn the ground thaat the crime committed, is seriouus. Article 21 of the Constitutionn applies irrespeective of the nature of the crimee. It is also well-settled that thee object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and thee proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the baill should be graanted or refused or whether it is probable that the party willl appear to takee its trial and it is indisputable thhat bail is not to be withheld as aa punishment.

6. RReliance can also be placed uppon the observations made byy Hon’ble Supreeme Court in Gurbaksh Singh SSibba v. State of Punjab, (1980)) 2 SCC 565 too the effect that the object of baail is to secure the attendance off the accused att the trial and the proper test to bbe applied in the solution of thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 5 question whetther the bail should be granteed or refused or whether it iss probable that the party will appear to take itss trial and it is indisputable thatt the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

7. SSo far as the question of prolongged incarceration and inordinatee delay in concllusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inn Satender Kummar Antil v. Central Bureau of IInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 511 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. whichh requires interr alia the accused to be enlargged on bail if the trial is nott conclude withhin specified period, would applyy to under-trial prisoners as welll in the absencee of any specific provisions. Thhe petitioner is in custody sincee 05.07.2023. Only 10 out of 59 prosecuti on witnesses have since beenn examined. Thhere is nothing on record to shoow that delay in any manner iss attributable too him. Taking into consideraation the period spent by thee petitioner in cuustody, the fact that trial is not l ikely to be conclude shortly, thee clean antecedeents of the petitioner and the faccts and circumstance peculiar too this case, the ppetition is allowed and the petitiooner is ordered to be released onn bail subject tto his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to thee satisfaction oof the learned Chief Judiciaal Magistrate/trial Court/Dutyy Magistrate conncerned. 8. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-493440-2026 (O&M) 6 9. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 10.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.