CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Divyangana Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 09 10.02.2023 Division No.3, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar 302 and 34 of IPC (397, 201, 379-B, 396 and 411 of IPC added later on( (411 of IPC deleted later on) MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 -2- 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Lallu alleging therein that on 08.02.2023, he along with his cousin Praveen Shukla and a co-villager Ram Pyare had come from his native place situated at Uttar Pradesh to Jalandhar and had reached at Railway Station, Jalandhar at about 10:30 PM. He had made a call to his brother-in-law Vijay who had proceeded for picking them up. While they were walking on foot and moving towards Patel Chowk and had reached near Dameriyan bridge, two persons reached there and started manhandling with them and started searching their pockets. The complainant and his companions tried to stop them but one of them took out a knife and struck a blow with the same on the right side of chest of his cousin Praveen Shukla. They snatched a bag held by the complainant and after taking out money from the pocket of pant of Praveen Shukla, they fled from the spot. Praveen Shukla had fallen down due to the impact of the injury sustained by him. On a clamour raised by the complainant, some persons had reached there and the victim Praveen Shukla was rushed to hospital who was declared to be brought dead. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the present petitioner and co-accused Ravi, Manoj Kumar, Murali @ Babbu and Ravi Kumar @ Raja were apprehended and formally arrested on 11.02.2023. They suffered MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 -3- disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of the victim and in commission of offence of dacoity. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR nor any specific act had been attributed to him. He is in custody for a period of over 03 years and 04 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 08 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The co-accused Murli @ Babbu has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. He has committed offences of robbery/dacoity by looting money from the complainant and the victim and then by killing the victim by giving stab wounds. The trial is going at a proper pace. There are chances of petitioner’s absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. His antecedents are also not clean as he has been involved in several other cases including offences of theft and attempt to dacoity etc. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 -4- 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have committed the murder of victim Praveen Shukla while robbing him and his companions of their money and other belongings. Recovery of weapon used at the time of commission of subject offence had been effected at his instance. The trial is going on at a proper pace as 08 witnesses have been examined and 04 have been given up. As such, it cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. The case of co-accused Murli @ Babbu is not on similar footing as the allegations against him were of doing a recce only. While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence. It is 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 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 MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 -5- threatening the complainant 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 sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). In light of the foregoing legal principles, this Court finds no compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 06.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh