CRM-M-20434-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-20434-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Gurpreet Kumar @ Gopi ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.166, dated 06.05.2020, registered under Sections 323, 341, 326, 307, 148, 149, 120-B and 188 of IPC (offence under Section 302 of IPC was added lateron), at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala. His previous petition bearing CRM-M- 42092-2025 had been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2025 as passed by this Court. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement got recorded by complainant Joginder Pal, alleging that on the night of 05.05.2020, he along with his friend Rampal @ Samma was going towards his village on their separate vehicles after dropping his colleague Bobby at his house. While on the way, they were intercepted by the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20434-2026 (O&M) -2- petitioner, who accompanied by co-accused, was armed with weapons and opened attack with an intent to kill them. The petitioner struck blow with a kirpan on his right wrist whereas the other assailants also caused injuries with their respective weapons. His friend Rampal was also assaulted by them. The complainant and his friend managed to flee but were again encircled by the assailants and were inflicted injuries on their person. The complainant somehow managed to flee and was taken to hospital for treatment. His friend Rampal was also taken to hospital and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner along with co- accused were arrested on 11.05.2020. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and got recovered the swords used by them in the occurrence. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody continuously since 11.05.2020. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only 05 out of 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. No fatal injury on the person of the victim had been attributed to the petitioner but only one injury on the person of the complainant was attributed to him. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Co-accused Harpreet Kumar, Jaswinder Kumar and Rajwinder Singh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20434-2026 (O&M) -3- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable being the second one. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He by forming an unlawful assembly with the co- accused had opened an attack upon the complainant and victim Rampal. He had caused injuries with a sword on the skull and face of the victim and had also caused injury on the person of the complainant. His previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order. There is no substantial or drastic change in the circumstances. His case cannot be treated to be at parity with the co-accused as specific attribution has been made to him. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. 8. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than 06 years and 02 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as out of 26 only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Co-accused Rajwinder Singh, Harpreet Kumar and Jaswinder Singh HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20434-2026 (O&M) -4- have been extended benefit of bail. It is well settled proposition of law that each day spent by an accused in custody furnishes a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. It is also well settled that prolonged incarceration of an accused is violative of his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 10. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document