CRM-M-8077-20 IN THE H PARMOD KUMA STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S **** MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 13.11.2023 registe 216, 120B, 473 o Division D, Amri 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KUMAR ALIAS LADI Versus PUNJAB date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for th Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Sections 302, 307, 1 473 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Amritsar. His previous petition bear JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-8077-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 12.05.2026 onounced 13.05.2026 loaded on the 13.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA for the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.132 dated 307, 160, 323, 324, 148, 149, 212, and 27 of Arms Act Police Station n bearing CRM-M-41443-2024 had oner dent ioner short ated 212, ation had AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-8077-20 been dismissed b following observa The p to ha causi same the p custo cases cases again which circu merit the c allow 2. It is a falsely implicated present at the spo He is in custody s out of 42 prosecut implicated with th No useful purpose 2026 (O&M) 2 ssed by this Court vide order dated bservations :- he petitioner being a member of an o have opened fire upon the memb ausing gunshots injury to Arun K ame and died. There are specific a he petitioner. His antecedents ar ustody certificate, he is shown to ases of serious nature and even be ases. Keeping in view the gravity gainst the petitioner, his antecede hich the conviction may entail ircumstances but without meaning erits of the case lest the same preju he considered opinion that the pet llowed. Accordingly, the same is dis It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He was neither n e spot of occurrence. No specific ro tody since 29.02.2024. There is no p ution witnesses have been examin ith the aid of Sections 212 and 216 re urpose would be served by detaining h dated 11.08.2025 by making the of an unlawful assembly is alleged embers of the rival group thereby n Kumar who succumbed to the fic and serious allegations against s are not clean since as per the to be involved in several other n been convicted in some of such vity of the allegations as levelled cedents, the quantum of sentence ail and the attendant facts and ing to make any comment on the prejudice the trial, this Court is of petition does not deserve to be is dismissed. l for the petitioner that he has been ither named in the FIR nor was he ific role has been attributed to him. is no progress in the trial as only 03 examined so far. In fact he has been 216 read with Section 120B of IPC. ining him in custody anymore. Each the ed eby e nst the her ch led nce nd he of be been s he him. ly 03 been IPC. Each AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-8077-20 day spent by him concession of bail allowed. 3. Per c report has vehem against the petitio respective pistols beaten the membe witnesses or absc clean as he is invo With these broad dismissed. 4. This C for the parties at co 5. So fa successive one is c move successive b while entertaining ground which per earlier application day spent by an a bail application u 2026 (O&M) 3 by him in custody has furnished a of bail afresh. It is, therefore, argued t Per contra, learned State counsel w vehemently argued that there are ser petitioner who alongwith co-accused istols thereby causing homicidal death embers of the rival group. There are r absconding, if extended benefit of is involved in several other cases and broad submissions, it is urged that s Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain ne is concerned, it may be mentioned ssive bail application for grant of bail aining such a subsequent bail applicat ch persuade it to take a view differe ion is made out or not? It is also r y an accused in custody provides a ne tion under certain circumstances. The ed a new ground to him to seek rgued that the petition deserves to be nsel while relying upon the status are serious and specific allegations cused had fired gunshots with their l death of Arun Kumar. He had also re are chances of his intimidating the fit of bail. His antecedents are not es and has remained a convict also. d that the petition is liable to be ubmissions made by learned counsel aintainability of this petition being tioned that, an accused has a right to f bail and it is the duty of the Court, pplication, to consider that any fresh different from the one taken in the also required to be noted that every es a new cause of action for filing a The denial of bail comes with a seek to be tatus tions their also e e not also. o be unsel eing ht to ourt, fresh the very ing a ith a AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-8077-20 condition that the petitioner is allege the co-accused an upon the members Kumar who had occurrence and th has placed on reco Singh and PW4 prosecution versio with the commiss period of over 02 the trial in the ne witnesses still rem effected at the ins Apex Court has ob custody for an i considered on its o of the broader app balance the right system. Prolonged settled proposition punitive. It is also generally militates 2026 (O&M) 4 at the prosecution must press for early alleged to have formed a membership sed and in prosecution of common o mbers of the rival group thereby caus had succumbed to the same. Th and the case rests upon circumstantia n record Annexure P7 and P8 i.e. swo PW4-Lovepreet Singh showing tha version and have not deposed anyth mmission of subject offences. The er 02 years, 02 months and 12 days. the near future are bleak as a subst ill remain to be examined. Recovery he instance of the petitioner but from has observed in a catena of cases tha an indefinite period of time, and n its own merits even if it is filed repe er approach emphasizing that law pr right of the accused with the require longed detention itself is a ground fo osition of law is that detention prio is also well settled proposition of law ilitates against the most precious funda r early completion of the trial. The ership of an unlawful assembly with mon object thereof shots were fired y causing firearm injury to one Arun . There is no eye-witness to the stantial evidence. The complainant .e. sworn depositions of PW3-Heera ng that they did not support the anything to connect the petitioner The petitioner is in custody for a days. The chances of conclusion of substantial number of prosecution overy of weapon of offence was not from the co-accused. The Hon’ble es that an accused cannot be kept in , and the bail application can be ed repeatedly. This principle is a part law prefers bail over jail, aiming to requirements of the criminal justice und for reconsideration of bail since n prior to trial should not become of law that prolonged incarceration s fundamental right guaranteed under The with fired Arun the inant eera the ioner for a n of ution s not n’ble pt in n be part g to stice since ome ation nder AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-8077-20 Article 21 of the conclusion of trial becomes entitled t and evidently is considered opinio petitioner in custo rule and jail is an replica of post- circumstances but case, lest it prejud the petitioner is or as well as surety Magistrate/trial Co 8. Since any, is rendered in 13.05.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 5 of the Constitution and in such ca of trial without there being any fault titled to be released on bail. Since th ly is shown to have been delayed, opinion that no fruitful purpose wou custody. It is also well settled prepos il is an exception and that pre-trial i -conviction sentence. Keeping i es but without meaning to make any prejudice the case of either of the parti r is ordered to be released on bail sub surety bonds to the satisfaction o rial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ch cases, when there is delay in fault on the part of the accused, he nce the trial of this case, apparently ayed, as such, this Court is of the e would be served by detaining the preposition of law that the bail is the trial incarceration should not be a ping in view the above facts and e any comment on the merits of the e parties, the petition is allowed, and ail subject to his furnishing personal tion of the learned Chief Judicial erned. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No y in d, he ently f the g the s the be a and f the , and sonal icial n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.