CRM-M No.14428 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 305 CRM-M No.14428 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Surender ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate and Ms. Mansi, Advocate, for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.382 dated 13.09.2023 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (Section 34 of IPC deleted later on) at Police Station Chand Hut, District Palwal. The previous petition as filed by him, had been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant alleging therein that on the night of 12.09.2023, his father who used to run an auto rickshaw, had reached home at about 11 PM and had parked his vehicle in front of his house. At the same time, the petitioner along with co-accused Dhyan Singh PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.14428 of 2026 -2- and Rajendra reached there. The petitioner struck several blows with brick on the head of his father whereas accused Dhyan Singh caused injuries with dandas and all of them gave kick and fist blows to his father who was rushed to hospital but was declared to be brought dead. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2023. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered a cemented brick used by him in the crime. The remaining persons named in the FIR were found to be innocent. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Falsity of the prosecution version is apparent from the fact that two persons named as assailants had been found to be innocent and even application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning them as additional accused has also been dismissed. Infact, the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor and at the time of alleged incident also, he was under the influence of the same. He had fallen on the brick lying at a construction site and had sustained injuries resulting into his death. Rather the petitioner and his family members had tried to save him. The material witnesses have been examined and have introduced the story totally variant to the version in the FIR. Their statements are, therefore, not worthy of any credit. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 02 years and 10 months. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases in the past cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.14428 of 2026 -3- that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender and had been convicted in hurt case in the past. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries on the person of the victim Kemchand resulting into his death. As per the postmortem report, the victim had sustained several head injuries which have been attributed to the petitioner. The material witnesses have been examined and have supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 02 years and 10 months. There is direct eye-witnessed account of the incident in this case. The allegations against him are serious in nature. 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 PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.14428 of 2026 -4- 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 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. However, considering the fact that, the petitioner has been in custody since long and the trial is not yet concluded, the trial Court is directed to make all endeavors to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. 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) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document