CRM-M-15555- IN THE H SEEMA 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. (throu Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Gurugram. Her fi 17.03.2025 and t -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA he 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 r. Dushyant Moudgil, Advocate for (through video conferencing) Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. The instant one is the third petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 302 and 120B of IPC Her first petition had been dismissed and the second petition had been JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-15555-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 27.04.2026 onounced 29.04.2026 loaded on the 29.04.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA ate for the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.198 dated 27.03.2024 f IPC at Police Station, Sector 10, issed by this Court vide order dated been dismissed as withdrawn on oner dent nder SS”) 2024 r 10, ated n on AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15555- 26.02.2026. The dismissing the firs “The accus and i allege per th both show occur petiti there and t mean consi relea 2. It is custody for a perio She was not adm allegations agains collected to prove has furnished a n chances of conclus witnesses have be -2026 (O&M) 2 The following observations were first petition :- The petitioner is alleged to have hat ccused with whom she was allege nd in pursuance of that conspirac lleged to have committed murder of er the prosecution case, the call det oth the petitioner and the co-accu hows their complicity with each oth ccurrence, they were in touch. etitioner are quite serious in nature hereof, the quantum of sentence wh nd the attendant facts and circums eaning to make any comment on t onsidered opinion that the petitio eleased on bail. Hence, the petition It is argued by learned counsel for a period of over 02 years. There is no t admittedly present at the spot of against her are of hatching a conspira prove her complicity in the crime. Ea d a new ground in her favour to se onclusion of trial in the near future, as ave been examined so far. It is als were made by this Court while hatched a conspiracy with the co- llegedly having illicit relationship iracy, the co-accused Shekhar is er of the victim on 26.03.2024. As l detail record of the cell phones of accused has been collected which other and that even at the time of h. The allegations against the ture. Keeping in view the gravity e which the conviction may entail umstances of the case but without on the merits thereof, I am of the etitioner does not deserve to be tion is dismissed. sel for the petitioner that she is in is no eye-witness to the occurrence. ot of murder of the victim. The iracy but no evidence has been e. Each day spent by her in custody to seek bail afresh. There are no ure, as only 07 out of 32 prosecution is also submitted that 05 material hile - hip is As of ich of the ity tail out the be is in ence. The been tody e no ution terial AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15555- prosecution witne subject offences. useful purpose wo therefore, argued t 3. Per c report has argued There are no mate petitioner are seri therefore, argued t 4. This C for the parties at co 5. So fa concerned, undou maintainable but substantial and dra petition as filed by and by observing and the co-accused touch with each o petitioner in the c accused who had against the petitio and there is nothin -2026 (O&M) 3 witnesses have not implicated the pe nces. PW Neelam, sister of the victim ose would be served by detaining he gued that the petition deserves to be al Per contra, learned State counsel w rgued that the petition is not maintai o material changes in the circumstance re serious in nature. The trial is go gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of mainta undoubtedly subsequent/successive e but for that purpose the accused nd drastic change in the circumstance iled by the petitioner had been dismiss rving that the call detail record of th ccused has shown that even at the tim each other. This fact is sufficient t the crime. She is accused of hatch o had actually committed murder of petitioner are serious in nature. The nothing to show that there would be the petitioner in commission of the victim has even turned hostile. No ing her in custody anymore. It is, o be allowed. nsel while relying upon the status aintainable being a successive one. stances. The allegations against the l is going at a proper pace. It is, eserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel maintainability of this petition is ssive petition for regular bail is ccused is required to show some stances. In the instant case, the first ismissed by passing a detailed order of the cell phones of the petitioner the time of occurrence, they were in ient to show the complicity of the hatching a conspiracy with the co- der of the victim. The allegations The trial is going at a proper pace uld be undue delay in conclusion of f the . No It is, tatus one. t the It is, unsel n is il is some first order ioner re in f the - tions pace n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15555- the trial. The wel custody or the fac the period of incar bail, when the offe the observations m Chenna Boyanna and State throug 280(SC). It is a discretionary relie circumstance of ea for considering th accusations, sever nature of evidenc reasonable appreh witnesses is also considered, and it the matter of gran on bail only on th the gravity of the may entail and th meaning to make considered opinio Accordingly, the s -2026 (O&M) 4 he well settled proposition of law is t the fact that the trial is likely to take f incarceration are not sufficient groun he offence alleged is serious. Referenc ions made in Parmod Kumar Saxena nna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Ma rough CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripat It is also well-settled proposition of y relief to be granted or denied e of each case and there cannot be an ing the application for grant of bail. , severity of punishment if the accusa vidence in support of accusations pprehension of tampering with eviden also to be weighed. Frivolity of p and it is only the element of genuinene f grant of bail. As such, the petitione on the ground of period spent by him of the allegations, the quantum of sent and the attendant facts and circumsta make any comment on the merits opinion that the petition does n , the same is dismissed. aw is that mere prolonged period of take time by itself or coupled with grounds for enlarging an accused on eference in this context can be had to ena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), f Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 ripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) ion of law that grant of bail is a nied based on specific facts and be any exhaustive parameters set out f bail. The factors such as nature of accusations entail a conviction and tions are to be seen. That apart, evidence or threatening the material ty of prosecution should always be uineness that has to be considered in titioner is not entitled to be released by him in custody. Keeping in view of sentence for which the conviction cumstances of the case but without erits thereof, this Court is of the oes not deserve to be allowed. d of with d on ad to , 42 al) is a and t out re of and part, terial s be ed in ased view ction thout f the wed. AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15555- 6. Since any, is rendered in 29.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.