AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present 3rd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0159 dated 08.10.2025 under Sections 336, 324(4), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 of Arms Act (Sections 125, 249, 253, 61(2), 190, 191(3) & 308 of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
“Statement by Dara Ram, son of Devi Chand, resident of Boda, police station Garhshankar, district Hoshiarpur, age about 46 years, Mobile-98786-52630 stated that I am a resident of the above address and I run my shop in the name of Verma Medical Store at Boda. Today, on 08-10-2025, I was sitting at my shop as usual. It must have been around 8:30 PM when I heard that 3 persons riding a motorcycle came from the direction of Anandpur Sahib Road. They stopped their motorcycle in front of my shop. As soon as they stopped, an unknown person sitting behind, who had his head, face and mouth covered, got down from the motorcycle and fired 2 shots with his weapon, which hit the front glass of the shop, which broke the glass. As soon as I saw this, the three unknown youths started riding their motorcycles. They escaped towards Garhshankar side by riding on it. When I shouted at them, the public gathered around and I called 112 and informed them about this. Those who came on the spot. I have written my statement to you, I have read it and heard it, it is correct. Legal action should be taken against these 3 unknown persons. SD/- Dara Ram Attestation/- Ravish Kumar ASI Police Station Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur Date 08-10-2025.
Action Police: - Today, ASI Jaspal 245/Hoshiarpur and PHG Kamaljit Singh 26753, PHG. Kuldeep Singh 26262 was present at Chandigarh Chowk Garhshankar in connection with a suspicious bad man in a government vehicle. Then, a complaint was received from 112 regarding Dara Ram, a resident of Boda, about firing at Verma Medical Store, Boda. The ASI was informed, on which the ASI along with his fellow employees reached village Boda at the spot. Then Dara Ram, son of Devi Chand, a resident of Boda, police station Garhshankar, district Hoshiarpur, got his statement recorded by the ASI, which was read out and read out to him. He considered his statement as correct and signed his statement in English, which I ASI verified the statement of the above-mentioned person. Thus, from the statement of above said person that the accused has committed the offence under section 336,324(4),3(5) BNS and 25-54-59 of Arms Act. After typing the statement, PHG Kamaljeet Singh 26753 was sent to Police Station for registration of an FIR. After lodging an FIR the number of the FIR must be intimated. Special report be prepared. Control room and senior officer be informed. I along with the fellow employees, present at the spot for investigation. SD/-Ravish Kumar ASI Police Station Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur Date 08-10-2025. Today Area Village Boda AT:- 11:15 PM.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that prime prosecution witness namely Dara Ram has turned hostile, and thus the trial is not culminate into conviction. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a young man aged about 22 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 14.08.2026, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 23.12.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 2 have been examined till date. It is also in dispute that PW Dara Ram has turned hostile. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel 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.
As per custody certificate dated 14.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 09 months and 16 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2026 by this Court in CRM-M-2257-2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably 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 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 cell-phone 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.