Kiran Mahajan vs State Of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant one is the fourth petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.12 dated 27.02.2024 registered under Sections 302, 307, 34 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Ludhiana, Punjab. The first petition bearing CRM-M-45964-2024 as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2024, the second petition bearing CRM-M-12070-2025 as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2025 and the third petition bearing CRM-M-34027-2025 as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.07.2025.

As per the allegations, on 27.02.2024, while performing patrolling duty, a secret information was received by a police party headed by SI Ashwani Kumar to the effect that the accused Vicky, Kala, Bawan, David, Hardeep Singh @ Ghuggu accompanied by some unknown accomplices had surrounded Suraj Parkash @ Babbu and Harpreet Singh in the area of Panj Peer road and they had opened fire upon them. It was also informed that Harpreet Singh was injured by receiving firearm injuries whereas Suraj Parkash had succumbed to such injury and had died. It was informed that the motive for murder of the victim Suraj Parkash was that he was a prosecution witness in the murder case of one Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukha. The aforementioned FIR was registered. The policy party rushed towards the informed place and found the dead body of the victim Suraj Parkash lying there which was taken to the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted. Statement of injured Harpreet Singh was recorded and Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 04.03.2024. He admitted his involvement in the crime. On his disclosure, the present petitioner and some other persons were nominated as accused on the allegations that a conspiracy had been hatched between them on 25.02.2024 to kill Suraj Parkash.

The petitioner was arrested on 05.03.2024. On interrogation, she too suffered a disclosure statement as per which after committing murder of the victim, her brother David i.e. the co-accused had handed over a leather bag containing one revolver and some cartridges to co-accused Jaswinder Singh who had delivered the same to her and she had kept it concealed in her house. She got recovered that bag containing one .32 bore revolver used in the crime along with the cartridges. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. She was not named in the FIR. There is no material on record to show that she was member of any conspiracy or was involved in prior meeting of minds with the co-accused to commit murder of the victim. Her antecedents are clean. The only role attributed to her is of receiving revolver from the co-accused. A false recovery has been planted upon her. She is in custody for a period of about 02 years and 06 months. Her further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She was part of conspiracy hatched with the co-accused for committing murder of the victim and in pursuance of that conspiracy and after murder of the victim, she had been handed over the weapon of offence which she had kept concealed to cause disappearance of evidence of the offence. It is argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the role as played by her, she does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

So far as question of maintainability of this petition being fourth petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is well settled proposition of law that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused, he becomes entitled to be released on bail.

So far as the allegations as levelled against the petitioner of hatching conspiracy with the co-accused is concerned, it is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to her being a part of the conspiracy has to be drawn. The other allegations as to her receiving firearm from the co-accused, the role so alleged to the petitioner in this regard is distinct from principal homicidal act. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the act of receipt of arms, primarily rests upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused and circumstantial inferences. This role is distinct and remote offence from the direct commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. This Court is required to see as to whether the material against the petitioner justifies her continued pre trial incarceration bearing the nature of the allegations and the progress of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2024. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. Her previous petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn and were not decided on merits. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. Her incarceration is about 02 years and 07 months. It is well settled proposition of law that an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India, howsoever serious a crime may be and the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It is equally well settled that if the delay in conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the accused, he deserves to be extended benefit of bail on account of prolonged incarceration. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.