CRM-M-21281- IN THE H (236) KARMA @ KAR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. V *** MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 06.08.2024 registe Sanhita, 2023 (for on the allegations accused Laadi, Ko Singh. The peti sprinkled petrol on The limbs as well raised by him, th arrested on 11.08 dismissed by this C -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KARMA SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocat Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab *** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petitio 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Sections 109, 3(5) a 3 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station ations that on 04.08.2025, the petiti di, Komal and Gabbar had intercepte e petitioner had caught-hold of him trol on him and accused Gabbar set hi s well as face of the complainant were im, the petitioner and co-accused 11.08.2024. The previous petition y this Court on 09.04.2025. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-21281-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.05.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA dvocate for the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.117 dated 3(5) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Station Baghapurana, District Moga, petitioner accompanied by the co- ercepted the complainant Gurvinder of him, whereas co-accused Laadi r set him on fire by igniting a lighter. t were burnt. On rescue alarm being had fled. The petitioner was etition as filed by him had been 2026 oner dent ioner short ated yaya oga, - inder aadi hter. eing was been AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.04 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21281- 2. It is a of his previous pe progress in the tr examined so far. extended benefit o benefit. Each day concession of bail. 3. Notic 4. Learn ready to argue the petitioner and has at parity with the identified by the respective sworn attributed specific submitted that the by passing a de circumstances. It allowed. 5. This C for the parties at co -2026 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for the ous petition a period of more than one the trial as only 02 out of 13 pros far. Similarly situated co-accused K nefit of bail. On parity, he too dese ch day spent by him in custody has fur of bail. It is thus, argued that the petiti Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance ue the matter. He has placed on rec d has submitted that the case of the pe th the case of the co-accused Komald y the complainant as well as eye-wi worn depositions, whereas the comp ecific overt act to the petitioner in hi at the previous petition as filed by the a detailed order and there is no es. It is, therefore, stressed that the p This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. for the petitioner that after dismissal an one year has expired. There is no 3 prosecution witnesses have been used Komaldeep @ Komal has been o deserves to be extended the same has furnished a ground afresh to seek petition deserves to be allowed. vance notice of the petition and is on record custody certificate of the f the petitioner cannot be stated to be omaldeep @ Komal as he was not witness Sukhdev Singh in their complainant Gurvinder Singh has r in his sworn deposition. It is also by the petitioner had been dismissed is no substantial change in the t the petition does not deserve to be ubmissions made by learned counsel issal is no been been same seek d is f the to be s not their has also issed the to be unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.04 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21281- 6. So fa concerned, it may applications for gr such a subsequen which the earlier b the Court to take also required to b Shrikant Purohit so observed. 7. The p by this Court on Singh have been prosecution versio petitioner in the su than 01 year and 0 to be at parity w witnesses have be intimidating these conclude as only 0 Each day spent b filing a bail applic the broader appro balance the right system. Prolonged -2026 (O&M) 3 So far as the question of maint it may be mentioned that an accused h for grant of bail, and it is the duty of sequent bail application, to consider arlier bail petition was rejected. The take a view different from the one ta d to be recorded. Reference in this r ohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018 The previous petition as filed by the rt on 09.04.2025. Now the complain been examined. Though the com version but the eye-witness Sukhdev the subject crime. The petitioner is in r and 08 months. Even if the case of t rity with the case of the co-accused ave been examined. As such there a these witnesses. The trial is still like only 02 out of 13 prosecution witness pent by an accused in custody provid application under certain circumstanc approach emphasizing that law pre right of the accused with the require longed detention itself is a ground fo maintainability of the petition is used has a right to make successive duty of the Court, while entertaining nsider the reasons and grounds on . The fresh grounds which persuade one taken in the earlier petition are this regard can be made to Prasad 2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was by the petitioner had been dismissed mplainant and eye-witness Sukhdev he complainant has supported the khdev Singh has not implicated the er is in custody for a period of more se of the petitioner is not considered ccused, however, now the material e are no chances of petitioner’s ill likely to take considerable time to itnesses have been examined so far. provides a new cause of action for mstances. This principle is a part of w prefers bail over jail, aiming to requirements of the criminal justice und for reconsideration of bail since n is ssive ining s on uade n are sad was issed hdev the d the more ered terial ner’s e to far. n for rt of g to stice since AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.04 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21281- settled proposition punitive. Taking the opinion that a Accordingly, the p on bail subject t satisfaction of the concerned. 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 04.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 osition of law is that detention prio aking into consideration the above di a case is made out for grant of bai , the petition is allowed and the petiti ject to his furnishing personal as of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No n prior to trial should not become ove discussed facts, this Court is of of bail to the petitioner at this stage. e petitioner is ordered to be released al as well as surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ome is of tage. ased the trate l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.04 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.