AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present 4th petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.04 dated 03.01.2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 304, 324(4), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that there is inordinate/ unexplained delay of 04 days in registration of the FIR. Learned counsel has urged that challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands filed and the trial is procrastinated and folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is not involved in any other serious offence, but for one FIR under Excise Act. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit dated 01.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that, in case, the petitioner is released on regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 06.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 05.01.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited and none has been examined till date. Keeping in view entirety of factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the nature of allegations, antecedents of the petitioner, challan, upon culmination of investigation, having been filed and conclusion of trial is likely to take long time; this Court is inclined to afford bail to the petitioner.
The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially 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.
As per custody certificate dated 06.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 09 months and 27 days.
Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Indubitably, the present petition is the 4th attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.03.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual matrix of the case in hand; especially, incarceration undergone by the petitioner as also glacial pace of trial; this Court is inclined to affirmatively 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, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/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 concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
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 off.