CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH 223 CRM-M-31717-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.20266 NISHANT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate foor the petitioner MMr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryanna * *** 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 arrising out of FIR No.276 datedd 25.12.2022 reggistered under Sections 302, 1200B and 34 of IPC (Sections 394,, 397, 201 and 4404 of IPC and Section 25 of Arrms Act added later on) at Policee Station Bahu Akbarpur, Rohtak, District RRohtak. His previous petitionn bearing No.CRRM-M-9257-2025 was dismisse d by this Court vide order datedd 24.03.2025 byy making the following observatiions :-TThe petitioner is alleged to havee hatched a conspiracy with thee coo-accused Sachin and in pursuuance thereof, he is alleged too h ave committed murder of the victim. The complainant Rohitt AArora has been examined beforee the learned trial Court as PW--1 . Copy of his sworn deposition aas well as other family memberss AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 2

off the victim, have been produceed on record and the same showw thhat none of them has made aany deposition as against thee p etitioner. However, since neitheer of them was an eye-witness too thhe murder of the victim, thereforre, no benefit can be taken of thee faact that they have not identifieed the petitioner as one of thee a ssailants. The allegations agaainst the petitioner are quitee seerious in nature. The knife useed by the petitioner for causingg innjuries to the victim resulting inn his death, has been recoveredd a t his instance. Keeping in view the nature of the accusations ass leevelled against the petitioner, thee quantum of sentence which thee coonviction may entail and the atttendant facts and circumstancess b ut without meaning to make anyny comment on the merits of thee caase, I am of the considered op inion that the petition does nott ddeserve to be allowed at this stagge. Hence, the same is dismissed.

2. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicaated in this case. He has suffereed prolonged incarceration for aa period of overr 03 years 08 months by now. Thhe chances of conclusion of triall in near future are still bleak as only 16 out off 31 prosecution witnesses havee been examineed so far. He was nominated aas an accused on the basis off disclosure staatement of the co-accused and there is no eyewitness to thee occurrence. EEach day spent by him in custoddy has furnished a ground afreshh to seek conce ssion of bail. His prolonged inccarceration militates against hiss AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 3 fundamental rrights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.. No useful purrpose would be served by detaaining him in custody anymore.. The complain ant, Rohit Arora, and another mmaterial witness, Nirbhay Singh,, have since bbeen examined and have nott implicated the petitioner inn commission o f the subject offences. It is, therrefore, argued that the petition iss maintainable aand he deserves to be extended bbenefit of bail.

3. PPer contra, learned State counsell has argued that the petitioner iss accused of commmission of a heinous crime off murder. It is further submittedd that the petitioon being a successive one is noot maintainable and has furtherr argued that ttaking into consideration the ggravity of the allegations, thee petitioner doess not deserve to be extended bennefit of bail. 4. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties. 5. SSo far as the question of maintaainability of this petition beingg successive onee is concerned, it may be mentiooned that, an accused has a rightt to move succeessive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of thee Court, while eentertaining such a subsequent bbail application, to consider thatt any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the onee taken in the eearlier application is made out oor not. It is also required to bee noted that eveery day spent by an accused in ccustody provides a new cause off action for filinng a bail application under certaain circumstances. He cannot bee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 4

kept in custoody for indefinite period andd the bail application can bee considered evven if it is filed repeatedly. Thhe denial of bail comes with aa condition thatt the prosecution must press foor early completion of the trial.. The petitionerr is alleged to have hatched a cconspiracy with the co-accusedd and in pursuannce thereof, is alleged to have ccommitted murder of the victim.. The petitionerr has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 03 yearss and 08 monthss. The trial is still likely to take cconsiderable time to conclude ass substantial nuumber of prosecution witnessses are still remained to bee examined. Itt is equally well settled that ddeprivation of personal libertyy without ensuriing speedy trial is not in consonnance with the right guaranteedd by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Inn Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vss The State of MMaharashtra and another 20244(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apexx Court had obsserved that howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has aa right to speedyy trial. Bail is not to be withhe ld as a punishment. It was alsoo observed that if the State or any prosecutinng agency including the Courtt concerned hass no wherewithal to provide or pprotect the fundamental right off an accused too have a speedy trial as enshhrined under Article 21 of thee Constitution, then the State or any other pprosecuting agency should nott oppose the pleea for bail on the ground that thhe crime committed, is serious.. Article 21 of tthe Constitution applies irrespecctive of the nature of the crime.. It is also well--settled that the object of bail iss to secure the attendance of thee accused at thee trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of thee question is wwhether the bail should be grannted or refused or whether it iss

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 5 probable that the party will appear to take itss trial and it is indisputable thatt bail is not to bbe withheld as a 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 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 27.12.2022. Only 16 out of 31 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 AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 6 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. 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-317117-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH 223 CRM-M-31717-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.20266 NISHANT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate foor the petitioner MMr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryanna * *** 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 arrising out of FIR No.276 datedd 25.12.2022 reggistered under Sections 302, 1200B and 34 of IPC (Sections 394,, 397, 201 and 4404 of IPC and Section 25 of Arrms Act added later on) at Policee Station Bahu Akbarpur, Rohtak, District RRohtak. His previous petitionn bearing No.CRRM-M-9257-2025 was dismisse d by this Court vide order datedd 24.03.2025 byy making the following observatiions :-TThe petitioner is alleged to havee hatched a conspiracy with thee coo-accused Sachin and in pursuuance thereof, he is alleged too h ave committed murder of the victim. The complainant Rohitt AArora has been examined beforee the learned trial Court as PW--1 . Copy of his sworn deposition aas well as other family memberss AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 2

off the victim, have been produceed on record and the same showw thhat none of them has made aany deposition as against thee p etitioner. However, since neitheer of them was an eye-witness too thhe murder of the victim, thereforre, no benefit can be taken of thee faact that they have not identifieed the petitioner as one of thee a ssailants. The allegations agaainst the petitioner are quitee seerious in nature. The knife useed by the petitioner for causingg innjuries to the victim resulting inn his death, has been recoveredd a t his instance. Keeping in view the nature of the accusations ass leevelled against the petitioner, thee quantum of sentence which thee coonviction may entail and the atttendant facts and circumstancess b ut without meaning to make anyny comment on the merits of thee caase, I am of the considered op inion that the petition does nott ddeserve to be allowed at this stagge. Hence, the same is dismissed.

2. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicaated in this case. He has suffereed prolonged incarceration for aa period of overr 03 years 08 months by now. Thhe chances of conclusion of triall in near future are still bleak as only 16 out off 31 prosecution witnesses havee been examineed so far. He was nominated aas an accused on the basis off disclosure staatement of the co-accused and there is no eyewitness to thee occurrence. EEach day spent by him in custoddy has furnished a ground afreshh to seek conce ssion of bail. His prolonged inccarceration militates against hiss AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 3 fundamental rrights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.. No useful purrpose would be served by detaaining him in custody anymore.. The complain ant, Rohit Arora, and another mmaterial witness, Nirbhay Singh,, have since bbeen examined and have nott implicated the petitioner inn commission o f the subject offences. It is, therrefore, argued that the petition iss maintainable aand he deserves to be extended bbenefit of bail.

3. PPer contra, learned State counsell has argued that the petitioner iss accused of commmission of a heinous crime off murder. It is further submittedd that the petitioon being a successive one is noot maintainable and has furtherr argued that ttaking into consideration the ggravity of the allegations, thee petitioner doess not deserve to be extended bennefit of bail. 4. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties. 5. SSo far as the question of maintaainability of this petition beingg successive onee is concerned, it may be mentiooned that, an accused has a rightt to move succeessive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of thee Court, while eentertaining such a subsequent bbail application, to consider thatt any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the onee taken in the eearlier application is made out oor not. It is also required to bee noted that eveery day spent by an accused in ccustody provides a new cause off action for filinng a bail application under certaain circumstances. He cannot bee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 4

kept in custoody for indefinite period andd the bail application can bee considered evven if it is filed repeatedly. Thhe denial of bail comes with aa condition thatt the prosecution must press foor early completion of the trial.. The petitionerr is alleged to have hatched a cconspiracy with the co-accusedd and in pursuannce thereof, is alleged to have ccommitted murder of the victim.. The petitionerr has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 03 yearss and 08 monthss. The trial is still likely to take cconsiderable time to conclude ass substantial nuumber of prosecution witnessses are still remained to bee examined. Itt is equally well settled that ddeprivation of personal libertyy without ensuriing speedy trial is not in consonnance with the right guaranteedd by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Inn Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vss The State of MMaharashtra and another 20244(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apexx Court had obsserved that howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has aa right to speedyy trial. Bail is not to be withhe ld as a punishment. It was alsoo observed that if the State or any prosecutinng agency including the Courtt concerned hass no wherewithal to provide or pprotect the fundamental right off an accused too have a speedy trial as enshhrined under Article 21 of thee Constitution, then the State or any other pprosecuting agency should nott oppose the pleea for bail on the ground that thhe crime committed, is serious.. Article 21 of tthe Constitution applies irrespecctive of the nature of the crime.. It is also well--settled that the object of bail iss to secure the attendance of thee accused at thee trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of thee question is wwhether the bail should be grannted or refused or whether it iss

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 5 probable that the party will appear to take itss trial and it is indisputable thatt bail is not to bbe withheld as a 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 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 27.12.2022. Only 16 out of 31 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 AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-317117-2026 (O&M) 6 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. 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.