CRM-M-20194- IN THE H BAL BAHADUR STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. **** MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 28.07.2024 registe Sanhita, 2023 (for -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH DUR SHARKI Versus HARYANA 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 Swayam Bansal, Advocate for th Mr. S.K. Panwar, Additional Advocat **** 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 3(5), 309(4 3 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 25 a JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-20194-2026 (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 dvocate General, Haryana petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.433 dated 309(4), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya ns 25 and 25(1)A of Arms Act, 1959 oner dent ioner short ated yaya 1959 AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-20194- at Police Station dismissed by this C 2. As p accused Karishma 27.07.2024, the co on phone. Some t inside the house complainant and Rs.75,000/- and o Karishma. The pe information on 29 countrymade pisto 3. It is a falsely implicated recovery has been about one year b prosecution witne conclusion of tria furnished a new g he deserves to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 tation Suraj Kund, District Faridabad y this Court on 27.05.2025. As per the allegations, the complai rishma as a domestic helper on 25 the complainant found accused Karis e time thereafter, 02 youths called house of the complainant. They t and took out her gold, diamond and other belongings and thereafter The petitioner and co-accused were ar on 29.07.2024. They got recovered e pistol. Investigation now stands con It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. He is in custod s been planted upon him. His previou year back. There has been no prog witness has been examined so far of trial in the near future. Each day new ground to seek concession of bail to be extended benefit of bail and idabad. His first petition had been omplainant Ritu Khanna had hired on 25.07.2024. On the night of Karishma while talking to someone called by accused Karishma entered They pointed pistol towards the amond jewellery, cash amount of eafter fled away alongwith accused ere arrested on the basis of a secret vered the looted jewellery and one ds concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been custody since 29.07.2024. A false previous petition was also dismissed o progress in the trial as only 01 so far. There are no chances of h day spent by him in custody has of bail afresh. It is thus, argued that ail and the petition deserves to be been hired t of eone tered the t of used ecret one been false issed y 01 s of has that o be AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-20194- 4. Per c petition of the pet is no substantial o committed offence upto life imprison Nepal. It is, there to be dismissed. 5. This C for the parties at co 6. So fa successive one is c move successive b while entertaining ground which per earlier application day spent by an a bail application u condition that the petitioner alongwi dacoity which ent accused of a heino prima facie show -2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel h he petitioner had been dismissed by p ntial or drastic change in the circums ffence punishable under Section 310(2 prisonment. There are chances of hi , therefore, argued that the petition is This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain s 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 cation is made out or not. It is also r y an accused in custody provides a ne tion under certain circumstances. The at the prosecution must press for early ongwith the co-accused is alleged to h ch entails punishment upto life impris a heinous crime punishable with life i show his involvement in the occurre nsel has argued that the previous d by passing a detailed order. There ircumstances. He is alleged to have n 310(2) of BNS which is punishable of his absconding as he hails from tion is not maintainable and is liable 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 r early completion of the trial. The ed to have committed the offence of imprisonment. The petitioner stands h life imprisonment. The allegations occurrence while having knowledge ious here have able from iable unsel eing ht to ourt, fresh the very ing a ith a The ce of tands tions edge AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-20194- that such offences The allegations a incarceration of t 29.07.2024. Howe period of custody coupled with the p an accused on ba context can be ha UOI, 2008(63) A Maharashtra, (20 Tripathi, 2005(4) of law that grant o specific facts and parameters set out such as nature of conviction and nat apart, reasonable material witnesses be considered, an considered in the m be released on ba Keeping in view which the convicti -2026 (O&M) 4 fences are likely to be committed in p ions against him are quite serious n of the petitioner is a prolonged o However, the well settled proposition ustody or the fact that the trial is lik h the period of incarceration are not su on bail, when the offence alleged i be had to the observations made in 3) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna , (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State th 5(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It i rant of bail is a discretionary relief to ts and circumstance of each case and t set out for considering the application re of accusations, severity of punishm nd nature of evidence in support of ac nable apprehension of tampering wit nesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity ed, and it is only the element of n the matter of grant of bail. As such, on bail only on the ground of peri view the gravity of the allegations, onviction may entail and the attendant ed in prosecution of common object. rious in nature. Undoubtedly the ged one as he is in custody since osition of law is that mere prolonged l is likely to take time by itself or not sufficient grounds for enlarging eged is serious. Reference in this in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. na Krishna Yadav Vs. State of te through CBI Vs. Amaramani It is also well-settled proposition lief to be granted or denied based on e and there cannot be any exhaustive ication for grant of bail. The factors unishment if the accusations entail a rt of accusations are to be seen. That ng with evidence or threatening the rivolity of prosecution should always nt of genuineness that has to be such, the petitioner is not entitled to f period spent by him in custody. tions, the quantum of sentence for ndant facts and circumstances of the ject. the since nged lf or rging this Vs. of ani ition d on stive ctors tail a That the ways o be ed to tody. e for f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-20194- case but without m is of the consider Accordingly, the s 7. Since any, is rendered in 13.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 hout meaning to make any comment o nsidered opinion that the petition do , the same is dismissed. Since the main petition has been dism infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ent on the merits thereof, this Court does not deserve to be allowed. dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ourt wed. n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.