IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CRM-M-35070-2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Date of uploading: 21.07.2026 Krishan Lal Singh @ Maddi ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocates for the petitioner(s). Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.193 dated 30.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) & 238 of BNS and [(Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 238 of BNS (added later on)], registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant received a telephonic call from an unknown person regarding dead body of his son, namely, Bakhshish Singh lying near the seepage drain situated on Karyal road. The complainant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused have committed murder of his son by administering him an overdose of some contraband/drug. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.21 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-35070-2026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been named in the present FIR only on the basis of suspicion. The deceased had died due to overdose of drugs. There is no evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the death of Bakhshish Singh. The petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 17 days. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 17 days & is involved in one more case registered under the NDPS Act 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and gone through the available records of the case. 6. Keeping in view the above and in furtherance of the facts and circumstances of the present case that the petitioner has been named in the present FIR only on the basis of suspicion; the deceased had died due to overdose of drugs; somewhat similarly placed co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh @ Dana and Jarnail Singh have been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.01.2026 (passed in CRM-M-3928- 2026) and 12.02.2026 (passed in CRM-M-7227-2026), respectively; the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 17 days and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time and therefore, continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no. CRM-M- NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.21 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-35070-2026 22198-2026 was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-6). However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case in hand especially keeping in view the extended custody and pace of 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 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.” 8. As per custody certificate filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is shown to be involved in one more FIR/case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.21 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-35070-2026 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. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/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 cellphone 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. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.21 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-35070-2026 10. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/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. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.21 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh