Pallab Raj Bhatta vs State of Haryana

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-'BNSS') seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.433 dated 28.07.2024 registered under 309(4), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short- 'BNS') and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 310(2) and 123 of BNS and Section 25 (1A) of Arms Act added and Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on), at Police Station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad. His previous petition bearing No.CRM-M-4944-2025 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed more than 01 year and 03 months back. He has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 02 years. The trial has not progressed much as only 01 out of 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. No useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition being the successive one is not maintainable. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a native of Nepal and there are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the question of maintainability of the 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 petitioner conjointly with the co-accused is alleged to have committed the offence of dacoity by entering into the house of the complainant, extended threats to her and then took away valuables in the form of gold and diamond jewellery, cash amount etc. from her house. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences against the petitioner. However, he has been in custody for a period of over 02 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 prosecution witness has been examined so far. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. 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. Since the trial of this case, apparently and evidently is shown to have been delayed, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any more. In view of the above discussion, a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the extent of two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

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