CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666---- 118 (1 118 (1 118 (1 118 (1stststst case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mandeep Singh @ Meepa State of Punjab Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision Decision Decision Decision Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET GOEL GOEL GOEL GOEL BNSS seeking dated 04.01.2024 307, 212, 201, 120 Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. 2. complainant, namely, his brother, namely, depot situated at Adda Dusarka in their vehicle. At about 10:00 a.m., Anup Kumar @ Vicky, accompanied by two unidentified pe at the tile depot on a black ----2026 2026 2026 2026 case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 Mandeep Singh @ Meepa Versus Punjab Decision Decision Decision Decision: : : : July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gurmehar Singh Minhas, Advocate Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the complainant. ***** ***** ***** ***** GOEL GOEL GOEL GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition is the 3rd attempt seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 04.01.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307, 212, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner complainant, namely, Amrik Singh, stated that on 04.01.2024, he, along with namely, Sandeep Kumar Sarpanch @ Cheena, had gone to their tile depot situated at Adda Dusarka in their vehicle. At about 10:00 a.m., Anup Kumar @ Vicky, accompanied by two unidentified pe at the tile depot on a black-coloured motorcycle. 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the complainant. attempt filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.1 ences punishable under Sections 302, B, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59-A of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. allegations against the petitioner is that the Amrik Singh, stated that on 04.01.2024, he, along with Sandeep Kumar Sarpanch @ Cheena, had gone to their tile depot situated at Adda Dusarka in their vehicle. At about 10:00 a.m., Anup Kumar @ Vicky, accompanied by two unidentified persons, allegedly arrived coloured motorcycle. It is alleged that when 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent 483 of the 1 302, A of the the Amrik Singh, stated that on 04.01.2024, he, along with Sandeep Kumar Sarpanch @ Cheena, had gone to their tile depot situated at Adda Dusarka in their vehicle. At about 10:00 a.m., Anup rsons, allegedly arrived It is alleged that when MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 Sandeep Kumar came out of his office, Anup Kumar @ Vicky fired a shot from his pistol, which struck Sandeep Kumar on the right side of his chest, causing him to fall to the ground. Thereafter, Anup Kumar @ Vicky allegedly fired three more shots towards Satvir Singh, Jiwan Singh, and Deep Singh, who were present at the spot. After the occurrence, Anup Kumar @ Vicky and his accomplices allegedly fled from the scene while hurling abuses at Sandeep Kumar. The complainant further stated that he, along with the persons present at the spot, immediately shifted Sandeep Kumar to KDM Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where the attending doctor declared him brought dead. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of his criminal antecedent(s). Learned counsel has further urged that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner was not present at the spot when the offence was committed, and is alleged to be a part of larger conspiracy and harbouring the assailants after the commission of crime. Learned counsel has further urged that prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the form of disclosure-statement of co-accused, which is not likely to stand judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel has also urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years and 05 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply by way of an affidavit dated 27.06.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are direct/ serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. It has been further contended that MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 the petitioner has criminal antecedents and, thus, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 07.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused for conspiracy and harbouring the assailants and, thus, is equally liable along with the assailants who had fired upon the deceased. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is involved in other FIR(s). Learned counsel has further opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that, in view of the criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner, he is likely to intimidate the witnesses, if released on bail. Thus, dismissal of petition in hand is prayed for. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2024, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua petitioner has been presented on 02.04.2024. Total 30 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that 02 have been partly examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 s, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 s, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 s, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus: ““““18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. 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. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”””” The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 07.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 05 months and 22 days. 6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 477 477 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State of State of State of State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.3. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 28.11.2024 and 06.11.2025, respectively. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially, extended custody of the petitioner & pace of trial; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA----SSSS----2332 2332 2332 2332----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: ““““10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”””” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The FIR-complainant is afforded liberty to apply before the concerned Superintendent of Police for grant of police protection, in case, he so requires. In case, any such application/ plea is made before the concerned Superintendent of Police, the same shall be ratiocinated upon within a period of 07 days therefrom and requisite steps, as deemed appropriate by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, be taken. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7777 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----26666 26666 26666 26666----2026 2026 2026 2026 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 08 July 08 July 08 July 08, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment