CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 ***** CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 Date of decision : 6.7.2026 Date of uploading : 6.7.2026 Deep Chand ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second 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 FIR No.547 dated 27.9.2024 under Sections 103(1) and 238(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘The copy of the complaint is as follows: To: SHO, Old Industrial Police Station, Panipat. Sir, I respectfully state that 1, Muskan, D/o Deep Chand, R/o Rampura Colony, Kabri Road, Panipat, belong to a family of four siblings. My father, Deep Chand, is involved in an illicit relationship with another woman named Pooja, which has led to frequent disputes between my mother, Suman, and my father, and he has often assaulted her. On September 24, 2024, I called my mother, who informed me that my father ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -2- had assaulted her. On the night of September 25, 2024, my father, with the intention to kill her, poured oil on her and set her on fire. Thereafter, my father admitted my mother to PGI Rohtak in order to conceal his crime. It is, therefore, requested that legal action be taken against my father, Deep Chand. Applicant: Muskan D/o Deep Chand R/o Rampura Colony, Kabri Road, Panipat, Mobile No.: 9991188463, Dated: 27.09.2024. Today, at Police Station Haswa, upon receipt of the above application, it was found that an offence under Section 109(1) BNS was made out. In the presence of SI Ramesh (No. 488), FIR No. 547 dated 27.09.2024 under Section 109(1) BNS at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat, was registered and computer copies of the FIR were prepared. A copy was sent to the police, and the original application was taken for further action. The SI, along with the complainant, proceeded to the spot. Copies of the remaining FIRs will be prepared and sent to the area Magistrate and concerned officers through email and post.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 28.9.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime cause for the petitioner having committed the murder of his wife is stated in the FIR to be his having illicit relationship with one Pooja but said Pooja is not a witness much less an accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witnesses, including PWs Muskan amd Harsh, who are the children of the petitioner and the deceased, have turned hostile. Thus, the trial does not culminate into conviction. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -3- thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 28.9.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 6.11.2024 and subsequently filed. Total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 4 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “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.” ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -4- The rival contentions; including the weightage required to be attached to the testimonies of the hostile witnesses, i.e. Muskan, Harsh and Rocky; shall be gone into 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 3.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 9 months and 5 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.5.2026 as the prime prosecution witnesses were not examined at that time. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and pace 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-S- 2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -5- 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 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. 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 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 cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.31090 of 2026 -6- 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed 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. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 6.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document