CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- 209 209 209 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Deepu Kumar @ Deepu State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Deepu Kumar @ Deepu Versus Punjab 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. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present fourth petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present the petitioner) is as follows: “Statement of Manjit Kumar Singh s/o Dalip Kumar Singh, r/o Khidarpur, P.S. Chore Bazar, Distt. Faizabad, U.P. at present resident of Fauji Da Vehra, Mandeep Nagar, Hambran Road, Ludhiana 98153343591 aged about 30 yrs, stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and doing the work of Paint. We are four Ranjit Kumar s/o Dalip Kumar Singh, who was resident of 19GZ, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana who was living with his wife Ankila and their children. He was doing in hosiery situated at Panj Peer Road. My brother Ranjit Kumar on 02.01.2020 in the morning at 9.00 AM went on his motorcycle No. Pb10cu2181 make Honda Dreem, colour red for his work. At evening at 8.00 PM he did not returned then my sister-in-law namely Ankila wife of Ranjit Kumar make a phone call to me and informed me that Ranjit Kumar has no 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August August August August 22 22 22 22, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….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. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.01 dated 03.01.2020, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal at Police Station P.A.U., District Ludhiana. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Singh s/o Dalip Kumar Singh, r/o Khidarpur, Faizabad, U.P. at present resident of Fauji Da Vehra, Mandeep Nagar, Hambran Road, Ludhiana 98153343591 aged about 30 yrs, stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and doing the work of Paint. We are four brothers and one brother namely Dalip Kumar Singh, who was resident of 19GZ, Rishi was living with his wife Ankila and their children. He was doing in hosiery Factory, which is brother Ranjit Kumar on 02.01.2020 in the at 9.00 AM went on his motorcycle No. Pb10cu2181 make Honda Dreem, colour red for his work. At evening at 8.00 PM he did not law namely Ankila wife of Ranjit Kumar make a phone call to me and informed me that Ranjit Kumar has not home. On 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , of the Indian Penal The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Singh s/o Dalip Kumar Singh, r/o Khidarpur, Faizabad, U.P. at present resident of Fauji Da Vehra, Mandeep Nagar, Hambran Road, Ludhiana 98153343591 aged about 30 yrs, stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and brothers and one brother namely Dalip Kumar Singh, who was resident of 19GZ, Rishi was living with his wife Factory, which is brother Ranjit Kumar on 02.01.2020 in the at 9.00 AM went on his motorcycle No. Pb10cu2181 make Honda Dreem, colour red for his work. At evening at 8.00 PM he did not law namely Ankila wife of Ranjit Kumar make t home. On MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- 3. is in custody since petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of suspicion. Learned counsel has further eye witness account evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime private prosecution witnesses already stand examined and thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel has further argued that IPC FIR(s) registered against him. 4. arguing that the allegations raised and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record 21.08.2025, in ----2025 2025 2025 2025 which I and my sister-in-law/Ankila search for him but we could not find him. While searching my brother Ranjit Kumar, when I reached at village Ayali Khurd on canal bye-pass some passerby told me that some dead body was lying on kacha road alongwith motorcycle. Then I went on the spot and saw that on the left side there was a kacha rasta brother dead body was lying and PB10CU2181 marka Honda Dreem, body of Ranjit Kumar there was injuries marks on right side of cheek, on head and on body there were weapon. Lot of blood was fell down and his body was beaten by brother Ranjit Kumar one day told me that Deepu son of Panna Lal Gupta, who was resident of U.P. near our who was residing near the house of Ranjit Kumar. He was having illicit relation with the wife of Ranjit Kumar. Due to above said reason, my brother Ranjit. Kumar had a quarrel with him. Deepu due to this and he was trying to revenge from my brother Ranjit Kumar. I have full faith that due to the said grudge Deepu s/o Panna committed murder of my brother. recorded my statement, which is heard and correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 04.01.2020. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of Learned counsel has further iterated eye witness account, but is substantially based on evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime private prosecution witnesses already stand examined and thus, no useful purpose served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a man aged 26 years with no previous IPC FIR(s) registered against him. Thus, regular bail Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2222 law/Ankila search for him but we could not find him. While searching my brother Ranjit Kumar, when I reached at village pass some passerby told me that some persons alongwith motorcycle. Then I went on the spot and saw that on the left side there was a kacha rasta there my brother dead body was lying and near him one motorcycle No. Dreem, colour red was also lying. On the r there was injuries marks on right side of his face, on cheek, on head and on body there were injuries marks with sharp edge blood was fell down and his body was beaten by dogs. My brother Ranjit Kumar one day told me that one boy of our village namely who was resident of U.P. near our village, who was residing near the house of Ranjit Kumar. He was having illicit wife of Ranjit Kumar. Due to above said reason, my quarrel with him. Deepu was having grudge due to this and he was trying to revenge from my brother Ranjit Kumar. I faith that due to the said grudge Deepu s/o Panna Lal had Legal action be taken. I have got ded my statement, which is heard and correct.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of iterated that case in hand is not of an , but is substantially based on suspicion/ circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime private prosecution witnesses already stand examined and thus, no useful purpose served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel has titioner is a man aged 26 years with no previous regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated taken on record. 2222 law/Ankila search for him but we could not find him. While searching my brother Ranjit Kumar, when I reached at village persons alongwith motorcycle. Then I went on my one motorcycle No. colour red was also lying. On the his face, on sharp edge dogs. My village namely village, who was residing near the house of Ranjit Kumar. He was having illicit wife of Ranjit Kumar. Due to above said reason, my was having grudge due to this and he was trying to revenge from my brother Ranjit Kumar. I Lal had action be taken. I have got the petitioner Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of an circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime private prosecution witnesses already stand examined and thus, no useful purpose served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel has titioner is a man aged 26 years with no previous by are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. custody certificate dated MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 26 prosecution examined, 0 Nevertheless examined whereas 05 years. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall 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 tri forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on earlier plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail withdrawn and the trial Court was dir expeditious disposal of the practically gone into vain. the petitioner for a period of more than 05 months and no in trial, and favourably consider the instant plea for bail. regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in ----2025 2025 2025 2025 I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited 06 have given up till date and 03 are stated to have died Nevertheless the fact remains that 05 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined whereas the petitioner is languishing in gaol since The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2025. earlier plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail and the trial Court was directed to expeditious disposal of the trial at the earliest. The said order appears to have practically gone into vain. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 05 months and no , and in view of the pace/ stage of the trial favourably consider the instant plea for bail. regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in 3333 rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2020 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 01.04.2020. Total witnesses have been cited, out of which, 11 has been and 03 are stated to have died. the fact remains that 05 prosecution witnesses are yet to be the petitioner is languishing in gaol since last more than The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this al. 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the fourth attempt by the to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . Before that, on 21.03.2024, an earlier plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was dismissed as ected to make sincere efforts for trial at the earliest. The said order appears to have However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 05 months and no substantial progress pace/ stage of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. 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 3333 parties and have gone through whereinafter Total out of which, 11 has been . the fact remains that 05 prosecution witnesses are yet to be last more than The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this al. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the attempt by the to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner , an was dismissed as make sincere efforts for trial at the earliest. The said order appears to have However, keeping in view further incarceration of substantial progress , this Court is inclined to A profitable reference, in this 2023 2023 2023 2023 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another reads as under: principles emerge: 6.2. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05 years, 07 months and 10 certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed ----2025 2025 2025 2025 Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another 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 su 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 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 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period 05 years, 07 months and 10 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 mstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed 4444 Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following 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. 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. 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 uperficial 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. 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 est left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). 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 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly rom the said order passed.” As per custody certificate dated 21.08.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period . 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the mstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed 4444 ; relevant whereof As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is ch petition ought not to be rejected Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as cution 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 uperficial 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 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 est left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing 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 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period . Further, as per the said custody 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the mstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High C Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/s 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 bou 8. which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed ----2025 2025 2025 2025 upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High C Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/s 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 (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 the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay trial. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed 5555 upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail 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 nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before r shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station hange his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed 5555 Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir ; a ourt in case of & judgments of this Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is urety 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 before the the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station prior the 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 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43412 43412 43412 43412---- hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands August August August August 22 22 22 22, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 2025 2025 2025 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6666 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 6666 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment