AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner to secure regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 22 dated 15.02.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 34, 120-B IPC (Sections 473, 201 IPC added later on), Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2024. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that one co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh has been extended the concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.7566 of 2026 (Annexure P-7) and another co-accused namely Soni @ Bobby Chappa has been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-37070-2026 (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that all prime private witnesses, including the FIR-complainant/injured, already stand examined. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2½ years and is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has submitted that he has received instructions that costs of ₹5,000/- imposed upon the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, vide order dated 07.09.2026, stand deposited.
State has filed reply dated 02.09.2026. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant) has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2024. Upon culmination of investigation challan qua the petitioner was presented on 17.05.2024, wherein total 22 witnesses have been cited, out of which only six have been examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court all prime private prosecution witnesses, including the FIR-complainant/injured already stands examined.
Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner which is more than 2½ years, all prime prosecution witnesses (including the FIR-complainant/injured) having been examined, one co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh having been granted the concession of regular by the Hon’ble Supreme Court & another co-accused namely Soni @ Bobby Chappa having been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner
The rival contentions raised at the Bar, give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
Further, as per custody certificate dated 12.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to have suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 6 months & 9 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR.
Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no. CRM-M-68562-2025 was dismissed on merits thereof on 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-6). However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstance of the case in hand; especially keeping in view the extended custody & glacial pace of trial; this Court is affirmatively inclined to consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:
“10.As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:
I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, and those which may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.