CRM-M-26726-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CRM-M-26726-2026 Date of decision : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 08.07.2026 PYARE LAL ………….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 2nd 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.41 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 7, 7A, 13(1)(b), read with Section 13(2) PC Act, registered at Police Station ACB Hisar, Haryana. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “It is submitted that I am Navdeep Kamboj s/o Sh. Pyare Lal r/o village Dhani Rampura, PO Bhawdin, Tehsil & District Sirsa. There was a Commission Agent Shop no.186 in the name of my father Pyare Lal s/o Sh. Sunder Lal r/o village Dhani Rampura in Grain Market, Sirsa. He expire on 13.12.2017. Thereafter, I my mother Veerpal, sister Poonam and grandmother Bhagabai inherited our ancestral land. A person named as Jonny Bansal of Sirsa, Grain Market had filed a case in court against my father in which decision was given on 05.12.2023 by the court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, ACJM (Senior Division), Sirsa in favour of other party namely Jonny Bansal. Thereafter, I filed appeal in the Sessions court, Sirsa against the decision but Jonny Bansal filed an Execution no. 45- 2025 in the court of Sh. Santosh Bhagotia ACJM (Senior Division), Sirsa in which the court of Santosh Bhagotia ACJM (Senior Division), Sirsa passed order for attachment of our land on 26.09.2025. and 24.10.2025 JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26726-2026 -2- was fixed 17.10.2025 the court of Sh. Nitin Kinra ADJ, Sirsa stayed the as the next date. On attachment order in my appeal on 05.01.2026 till next date under compromise. About 10 days ago, I received a phone call from Patwari Pyarelal Halka Baba Bhuman Shah on my mobile no.93306- 660006 and he said that I have received order regarding taking action for attachment of you land. On this when I met patwari Pyarelal on 15.10.2025, he took Rs.10,000/- from me saying that he will not take any action on the attachment order and I will talk to the Sir. I met patwari Pyarelal on 16.10.2025 also and told him that we have arrived at an agreement with the party I will supply the copy of the court order to you as soon as I get it. On this, patwari Pyarela stated that there will be more expenses for preventing the attachment of the land, which I will tell you later. The court had given the order regarding stay of the attachment on 17.10.2025 and patwari Pyarelal was made aware of the said order. Even thereafter, Patwari Pyarelal under took the attachment proceedings by going to our village and making announcement. I talked to Patwari Pyarelal when I came to know about this and intimated him about receiving the copy of the court order also. On this patwari stated that attachment does not stop like this, some more expenses will have to be given. Then I said that you tell me as to how much expenses will be there. He said that you come and meet me in Sirsa, I will tell you. On this, I met patwari Pyarelal outside E-Disha kinder, Sirsa on the same day. He said to me that expenses will be to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. When I said that I do not have this much amount, please reduce a bit, he stated that in any case you will have to pay Rs.5,000/-, out of which I will pay Rs.3,000 to the Tehsildar, Rs.1,000 to the reader and Rs.1,000 is shall keep. At that time I was having Rs.2,000/- which I gave to Patwari Pyarelal. I promised to give Rs.3,000/- on 23rd, I recorded the entire conversation with Patwari Pyarelal on recording device, which I will present to you later on. I could not meet patwari pyare lal yesterday due to urgent work. When I talked to patwari Pyarelal in the evening, he asked me to meet him tomorrow and handover the remaining amount. Today I have to give bribe of Rs.3,000/- to Patwari Pyarelal. I do not want to give this bribe amount to him. Legal action may be taken against him.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that no effective recovery has been effected from the petitioner, and therefore, he cannot be saddled with the culpability for the offence in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, upon the culmination of the investigation, challan stands presented, and even the complainant has been examined on 25.06.2026. Learned counsel has further reiterated that the petitioner is a 62-year-old man and is not in very good health. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26726-2026 -3- 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 02.07.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the voice sample of the petitioner has matched, and thus there is clinching evidence against the petitioner of having committed the offence(s) in question. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 13.05.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 20.12.2025. Total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which only 1 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel 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. JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26726-2026 -4- 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 13.05.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06 months and 19 days and is shown to be involved in other cases. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir 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 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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 02.02.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the FIR complainant (Navdeep Kamboj) having been examined as a prosecution witness, the pace of the trial, as also the extended custody, 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 JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26726-2026 -5- 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 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 JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26726-2026 -6- 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 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 08.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.08 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document