CRM-M-19661 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SURINDER SINGH @ CHINDA PALWAN STATE OF PUNJAB 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. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The under Section 483 of “BNSS”) for grant of 14.08.2024 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 324(4), 126(2), 309(4), 191(2), 190, 117(3) and 118 of “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police His previous petition bearing No.CRM Court vide order dated 06.11.2025. 19661-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM SURINDER SINGH @ CHINDA PALWAN Versus PUNJAB 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. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate for the complainant **** 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. 14.08.2024 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 324(4), 126(2), 309(4), 191(2), 190, 117(3) and 118 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police His previous petition bearing No.CRM-M-22858 Court vide order dated 06.11.2025. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19661-2026 (O&M) SURINDER SINGH @ CHINDA PALWAN ... 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 Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate for the complainant petition filed by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.180 dated 14.08.2024 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 324(4), 126(2), 309(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Patran, District Patiala. 22858-2025 was dismissed by this petition filed by the petitioner Sanhita, 2023 (for short 180 dated 14.08.2024 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 324(4), 126(2), 309(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short Station Patran, District Patiala. 2025 was dismissed by this AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19661 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his previous petition had been dismissed ten months has passed ever since then, h progress in the trial as only five witnesses have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh concession of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right to liberty. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to b bail. 3. Per contra the complainant serious in nature, as he, along with the co simple as well as grievous injuries assembly and by continuously hitting him on his left leg, leading to amputation of the same. The bail petition filed by co Happy has been dismissed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail petition of co- is a second and successive petition and, hence, is not maintainable. More so, the petitioner is a habitual offender who is presently undergoing a sentence of 10 years in a case regist in custody in this case at the moment. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 19661-2026 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his previous petition had been dismissed by this Court on 06.11.2025. A ths has passed ever since then, however, there has been not much progress in the trial as only five witnesses have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh concession of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right to liberty. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to b Per contra, learned State counsel the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as he, along with the co-accused, had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victim by forming an unlawful assembly and by continuously hitting him on his left leg, leading to amputation of the same. The bail petition filed by co has been dismissed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail -accused Nikhil Ragda has also been dismissed. The instant one is a second and successive petition and, hence, is not maintainable. More so, the petitioner is a habitual offender who is presently undergoing a sentence of 10 years in a case registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act and is in custody in this case at the moment. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his previous by this Court on 06.11.2025. A period of about owever, there has been not much progress in the trial as only five witnesses have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground to him to seek concession of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right to liberty. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of , learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are accused, had voluntarily caused to the victim by forming an unlawful assembly and by continuously hitting him on his left leg, leading to amputation of the same. The bail petition filed by co-accused Jasvir Singh @ has been dismissed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail accused Nikhil Ragda has also been dismissed. The instant one is a second and successive petition and, hence, is not maintainable. More so, the petitioner is a habitual offender who is presently undergoing a sentence of ered under the provisions of the NDPS Act and is not in custody in this case at the moment. It is, therefore, argued that the petition It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his previous period of about owever, there has been not much progress in the trial as only five witnesses have been examined so far. Each him to seek concession of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right e extended the benefit of assisted by learned counsel for has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are accused, had voluntarily caused to the victim by forming an unlawful assembly and by continuously hitting him on his left leg, leading to @ has been dismissed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail accused Nikhil Ragda has also been dismissed. The instant one is a second and successive petition and, hence, is not maintainable. More so, the petitioner is a habitual offender who is presently undergoing a sentence of not in custody in this case at the moment. It is, therefore, argued that the petition AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19661 4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties a 5. The petitioner, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim to such an extent that his left leg was amputated. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of only 10 months and 3 days in this case and is otherwise undergoing sentence in another case after 05.07.2025. previous petition as filed by the detailed order as narrated above. The well settled proposition of law is that a successive regular bail petition is maintainable, however, for such petition to succeed, the petitioner should essentially show some circumstances. Showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not specify. Cogent and persuasive reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for grant of regular bail. The petitioner has approached this Court again basis of his prolonged incarceration. No doubt, he a period of about 10 months going at a proper pace. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime. The allegations prima facie knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. It is also well discretionary relief to be granted o circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set 19661-2026 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim to such an extent that his left leg was amputated. The allegations m are quite serious in nature. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of only 10 months and 3 days in this case and is otherwise undergoing sentence in another case after 05.07.2025. previous petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order as narrated above. The well settled proposition of law is that a successive regular bail petition is maintainable, however, for such petition to succeed, the petitioner should essentially show some circumstances. Showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not specify. Cogent and persuasive reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for grant of regular bail. The petitioner has approached this Court again basis of his prolonged incarceration. No doubt, he a period of about 10 months in this case, however, the trial is stated to be going at a proper pace. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime. The prima facie show his involvement in the occurrence while having knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. It is also well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim to such an extent that his left leg was amputated. The allegations m are quite serious in nature. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of only 10 months and 3 days in this case and is otherwise undergoing sentence in another case after 05.07.2025. The petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order as narrated above. The well settled proposition of law is that a successive regular bail petition is maintainable, however, for such petition to succeed, the petitioner should essentially show some substantial change in the circumstances. Showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not specify. Cogent and persuasive reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for grant of regular bail. The petitioner has approached this Court again on the basis of his prolonged incarceration. No doubt, he has remained in custody for , however, the trial is stated to be going at a proper pace. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime. The show his involvement in the occurrence while having knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a r denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim to such an extent that his left leg was amputated. The allegations m are quite serious in nature. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of only 10 months and 3 days in this case The petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order as narrated above. The well settled proposition of law is that a successive regular bail petition is maintainable, however, for such petition to substantial change in the circumstances. Showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not specify. Cogent and persuasive reasons are pertinently required to be recorded on the in custody for , however, the trial is stated to be going at a proper pace. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime. The show his involvement in the occurrence while having knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a r denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19661 out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations ent and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be consider considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the o 6. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that any for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 8 Since the main petition has been if any, is rendered infructuous. 02.09.2026 Amit Sharma 19661-2026 (O&M) 4 out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations ent and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 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 bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should ed, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for ffence alleged is serious. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 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 dismissed, pending application, (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature ail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should ed, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no pending application, AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.02 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.