CRM-M-26673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HASNU JAMAL STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Present: M Ms. Sadhana, Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The under Section 483 of “BNSS”) for grant of 10.09.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram. His previous petition bearing No.CRM was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.09.2023. 26673-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM HASNU JAMAL Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Mr. S.S. Nain, Advocate and Ms. Sadhana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 10.09.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram. His previous petition bearing No.CRM was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.09.2023. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26673-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The date when the judgment is reserved 01.09.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.09.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 02.09.2026 operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana petition filed by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short in case arising out of FIR No.281 dated 10.09.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram. His previous petition bearing No.CRM-M-36056-2023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.09.2023. petition filed by the petitioner Sanhita, 2023 (for short 281 dated 10.09.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Sector 40, 2023 AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26673 2. The afor complaint submitted by the complainant of premises owned by one Radhey Shyam Sharma at Village Silokh District Gurugram, had performed love marriage with the present petitioner about three months back, and for the last 7 Radhey Shyam Sharma by hiring the same on rent. Quarrels used to take place between the petitioner and his wife. In the morning of 10.09.2021, the complainant had gone to the room of the victim and found her dead body to be lying there. By alleging t of his sister, he prayed fo 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post conducted, as per which the cause of death was ligature strangulation. The petitioner was ar disclosure statement admitting the fact that he had murdered his wife. He also got recovered a lungi (piece of cloth) used by him for strangulating the victim. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about five years. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak, as only 14 out of 25 prosecution w 26673-2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written submitted by the complainant-Afzal Hussain, who was a caretaker of premises owned by one Radhey Shyam Sharma at Village Silokh District Gurugram, alleging that his cousin sister R had performed love marriage with the present petitioner about three months back, and for the last 7–8 days, they had shifted into a room in the premises of Radhey Shyam Sharma by hiring the same on rent. Quarrels used to take place between the petitioner and his wife. In the morning of 10.09.2021, the complainant had gone to the room of the victim and found her dead body to be lying there. By alleging that the petitioner might have , he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which the cause of death was ligature strangulation. The petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2021. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement admitting the fact that he had murdered his wife. He also got recovered a lungi (piece of cloth) used by him for strangulating the victim. Investigation now stands completed. t is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about five years. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak, as only 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His ementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Afzal Hussain, who was a caretaker of premises owned by one Radhey Shyam Sharma at Village Silokhara, alleging that his cousin sister Rajima Bibi ( i.e. the victim) had performed love marriage with the present petitioner about three months 8 days, they had shifted into a room in the premises of Radhey Shyam Sharma by hiring the same on rent. Quarrels used to take place between the petitioner and his wife. In the morning of 10.09.2021, the complainant had gone to the room of the victim and found her dead body to hat the petitioner might have hand in the murder r taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which the cause of death was ligature strangulation. The rested on 28.09.2021. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement admitting the fact that he had murdered his wife. He also got recovered a lungi (piece of cloth) used by him for strangulating the t is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about five years. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak, as itnesses have been examined so far. His ementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Afzal Hussain, who was a caretaker ra, the victim) had performed love marriage with the present petitioner about three months 8 days, they had shifted into a room in the premises of Radhey Shyam Sharma by hiring the same on rent. Quarrels used to take place between the petitioner and his wife. In the morning of 10.09.2021, the complainant had gone to the room of the victim and found her dead body to hand in the murder After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted, as per which the cause of death was ligature strangulation. The rested on 28.09.2021. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement admitting the fact that he had murdered his wife. He also got recovered a lungi (piece of cloth) used by him for strangulating the t is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about five years. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are still bleak, as itnesses have been examined so far. His AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26673 prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. His continued incarceration would not serve are clean. It is of bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon INSC 12 : 2026 SCC Online 5. Per contra being a successive one is not maintainable. He has further argued that into consideration the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have caused the his own wife by strangulating her. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 4 years and 11 months. The trial is still likely to take considerable time to conclude as substantial number of prosecution witnesses are still remained to be examined. So far as question of maintainability of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly it is a successive petition. The well proposition of law is that if there is some dr 26673-2026 (O&M) 3 prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. His continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has aced reliance upon Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (SC) 2026 INSC 12 : 2026 SCC Online. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued being a successive one is not maintainable. He has further argued that into consideration the gravity of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is alleged to have caused the his own wife by strangulating her. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 4 years and 11 months. The trial is still likely to take considerable time to s substantial number of prosecution witnesses are still remained to . So far as question of maintainability of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly it is a successive petition. The well proposition of law is that if there is some drastic change in the circumstances, prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. His any useful purpose. His antecedents argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (SC) 2026 , learned State counsel has argued the present petition being a successive one is not maintainable. He has further argued that taking gravity of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner is alleged to have caused the homicidal death of his own wife by strangulating her. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 4 years and 11 months. The trial is still likely to take considerable time to s substantial number of prosecution witnesses are still remained to . So far as question of maintainability of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly it is a successive petition. The well-settled astic change in the circumstances, prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. His any useful purpose. His antecedents argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (SC) 2026 the present petition taking gravity of the allegations as leveled against the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned homicidal death of his own wife by strangulating her. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 4 years and 11 months. The trial is still likely to take considerable time to s substantial number of prosecution witnesses are still remained to . So far as question of maintainability of this petition is settled astic change in the circumstances, AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26673 the successive petition is maintainable. It is equally well settled that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Javed another 2024(9) SCC 813, howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the Stat or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well object of bail is to proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisp punishment. Reference in this regard can Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 8. So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions containe 26673-2026 (O&M) 4 the successive petition is maintainable. It is equally well settled that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and r 2024(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the Stat or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference in this regard can also Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which the successive petition is maintainable. It is equally well settled that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well-settled that the secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will utable that bail is not to be withheld as a also be made to Gurbaksh Singh So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 d in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which the successive petition is maintainable. It is equally well settled that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have e or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution settled that the secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will utable that bail is not to be withheld as a Gurbaksh Singh So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 d in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26673 requires inter alia conclude within specified period, would apply to in the absence of any specific provisions. incarceration of about 05 years. Only 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have since been examined. There is nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. by the petitioner in c shortly, the clean antecedents of the petitioner and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furn the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition bearing on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. 02.09.2026 Amit Sharma 26673-2026 (O&M) 5 inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not conclude within specified period, would apply to in the absence of any specific provisions. incarceration of about 05 years. Only 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have since been examined. There is nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the fact that trial is not likely to be conclude shortly, the clean antecedents of the petitioner and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, 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 satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not conclude within specified period, would apply to under-trial prisoners as well in the absence of any specific provisions. The petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 05 years. Only 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have since been examined. There is nothing on record to show that delay in Taking into consideration the period spent ustody, the fact that trial is not likely to be conclude shortly, the clean antecedents of the petitioner and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be ishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not trial prisoners as well ered incarceration of about 05 years. Only 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have since been examined. There is nothing on record to show that delay in Taking into consideration the period spent ustody, the fact that trial is not likely to be conclude shortly, the clean antecedents of the petitioner and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be ishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only and the same shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.