CRM-M-61159- IN THE H (109) MAKHAN SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR CRM-5816-2025 1. Appli exceptions and th placed on record a CRM-M-61559- 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the p Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
2025 Application for placing on record and the document annexed with the cord as Annexure P-6. -2025 The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 302 IPC (Section 201 an JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-61559-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner record is allowed subject to just th the application is ordered to be petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.299 dated 17.11.2021 201 and 120B IPC added later on) at 2026 oner
dent
just o be nder ) 2021 n) at AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-61159- Police Station Sa caused homicidal on the night of 16 was dismissed by -2025 (O&M) 2 on Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka icidal death of his wife Prakash Kaur t of 16.11.2021. His previous petition ed by this Court by making the followi 6. The petitioner along wit is alleged to have killed his ow @ Usha in the night of 16.11.2 the petitioner for committing was in extra marital affair with in order to get rid of the vic marriage with Binder Kaur, accused had killed the victim iron wire. There are serious a the petitioner. He is accused own wife in a planned manne trial is going on. The appreh State counsel that if the petitio interim bail, he can intimida stated to be unfounded. The gr prime consideration for the concession of bail to an accus petitioner seeking parity wit concerned, the order dated Hon'ble Supreme Court, itself do so. Therefore, keeping in alleged to have been committ attributed to him, the quan conviction may entail and circumstances, this Court is o on the allegations that he had Kaur @ Usha by strangulating her etition bearing CRM-M-28505-2023 following observations :- with the co-accused Binder Kaur is own wife namely Prakash Kaur .11.2021. The motive attributed to ting murder of his wife is that he with co-accused Binder Kaur and victim so that he could perform aur, he in conspiracy with co- ctim by strangulating her with an us and specific allegations against used of committing murder of his anner. He is on interim bail. The prehension expressed by learned etitioner is permitted to remain on imidate the witnesses, cannot be he gravity of the offence alleged is the Courts to grant/deny the ccused. So far as the claim of the with co-accused Binder Kaur is ated 05.11.2024, passed by the self says that the petitioner cannot g in view the gravity of offence mitted by the petitioner, the role quantum of sentence which the and the attendant facts and is of the considered view that the had g her 2023 aur aur to he nd rm - an nst his he ed on be is the the is the not nce le the nd the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-61159- 2. It is dismissal of his p months has lapsed and 02 months. would not serve evidence. It is, the 3. Per c fag end since on examined. The pr a detailed order. T It is, therefore, arg 4. This C for the parties at co 5. Undo however, for such substantial change ostensible change the observations m -2025 (O&M) 3 petitioner does not deserve to b bail, at this stage. Hence, the p directed to surrender before period of 10 days from today. It is argued by learned counsel for f his previous petition, a period of lapsed. He has remained in custody nths. The trial has still not conclud serve any useful purpose. The cas t is, therefore, argued that he deserves t Per contra, learned State counsel has ce only 02 out of 28 prosecution The previous petition of the petitioner rder. There is no substantive or drasti re, argued that no ground for allowing This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. Undoubtedly, a second/successive r such a period petition to succeed, th change in the circumstances and show hange would not suffice. Reference i tions made by this Court in CRA-S-23 e to be given concession of regular the petition stands dismissed. He is fore the jail authorities within a ay. sel for the petitioner that after the d of more than one year and two stody for a total period of 03 years ncluded. His further incarceration he case is based on circumstantial erves to be released on bail. sel has argued that the trial is at its ution witnesses now remain to be ioner had been dismissed by passing drastic change in the circumstances. owing the petition is made out. ubmissions made by learned counsel petition is maintainable in law, eed, the petitioner must show some d showing of a mere superficial or rence in this regard can be drawn to 2322-2022 titled as Rafiq Khan lar e is a r the two years ation ntial at its o be ssing nces. unsel law, some al or n to an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-61159- Versus State of H further held that in petition, cogent a granting such plea petitioner is prolo already at its fag e any undue delay there are no subs ground has been dismissed. 6. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 7. Since any, is rendered in 27.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 of Haryana and another, wherein that in case a Court chooses to grant gent and lucid reasons are pertinently h plea. In the instant case, the only rolonged period of incarceration s fag end and there is nothing on recor delay in conclusion of the trial, this substantial or drastic change in the been made for allowing the petition 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 dis ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
erein it was observed so and it was grant second/successive regular bail tinently required to be recorded for only ground which is taken by the ation. However, since the trial is n record to show that there would be , this Court is inclined to hold that in the circumstances and hence no petition. Accordingly, the same is e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
dismissed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
Yes/No
was r bail d for y the al is ld be that e no e is l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.