CRM-M-10940-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-10940-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Rajesh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.699 dated 02.11.2022, registered under Sections 120- B, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC (Sections 114, 201 and 404 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani. His previous petition was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 04.11.2024 passed in CRM-M-48141-2024. The operative part of the order dated 04.11.2024 reads as under: “7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the same, he is alleged to have committed murder of the victim along with co-accused by giving injuries to him repeatedly with a danda. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The trial MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10940-2026 (O&M) -2- is going at proper pace. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The petitioner can not claim parity with the co-accused who have been extended benefit of bail. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstance but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.” 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has clean antecedents. The only role assigned to him in the commission of subject crime is that he had given a danda blow on the thigh of the deceased victim. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. Even, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The petitioner has been in custody for the last over 03 years and 08 months. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future, particularly as only 43 out of total 51 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petition. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10940-2026 (O&M) -3- respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. His previous petition has been dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order. The instant one, which is a successive petition, has been filed without there being any substantial change in circumstances. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 5. Although the previous petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 04.11.2024, however, he has now undergone a period of more than 03 years and 08 months. Several co-accused have been granted concession of regular bail by this Court in the meanwhile. The trial is still pending and, though 43 out of 51 prosecution witnesses have been examined, its conclusion is likely to take some more time. These facts amount to substantial change in circumstances in the opinion of this Court, which entitles the petitioner to seek concession of bail. The petitioner, being an undertrial, cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period awaiting conclusion of the trial. The right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to a speedy trial and every additional day spent in custody without conclusion of the trial has a direct bearing on that valuable right. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner into custody anymore and a case has been made out for his release on bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10940-2026 (O&M) -4- to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. 6. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 16.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document