CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Phullo Devi @ Sumitra Devi ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- 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.391 dated 02.11.2024 registered under Sections 190, 191(3) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, Haryana. Her previous petition bearing CRM-M-23752-2025 had been dismissed by this Court on 06.11.2025 by making the following observations:- “7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in MANJU 2026.07.28 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 -2- prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim, thereby causing his homicidal death. Fatal injury might not have been attributed to the petitioner but still the allegations against her are serious in nature as she appears to be an active participant in the incident, who had thrown brick bats over the victim and other members of his party and facilitated the commission of subject crime by the co-accused. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the previous petition, the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of about eight months. She had otherwise undergone custody for a period of about more than 01 year and 08 months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as none out of 30 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The fatal injury had not been attributed to her. Her prolonged incarceration militates against her fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Each day spent by her in custody has furnished a new ground to her to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail. MANJU 2026.07.28 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 -3- 3. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She was an active participant of the occurrence. She along with other accused had caught hold of the deceased while he was being attacked and had also thrown brickbats over the deceased and other members of the complainant party. She was seen in the CCTV footage. The previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order. There is no drastic or substantive change in the circumstances. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 5. 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. The only new ground which has been taken by the petitioner for seeking bail in this petition is her prolonged incarceration of more than a period of 01 year and 08 months and the fact that no prosecution witness has been MANJU 2026.07.28 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 -4- examined so far. The petitioner is alleged to have played an active role in the commission of subject offences as not only she along with the other accused is alleged to have caught hold of the victim Sunny thereby facilitating causing of stabbed injuries to him by the co-accused resulting into his death but she is also alleged to have thrown brick bats over the other members of the complainant party. 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 103 of BNS. There exists a genuine apprehension that her 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 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 MANJU 2026.07.28 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15499 of 2026 -5- 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). Taking into consideration the part played by the petitioner and the gravity of the allegations as levelled against her, this Court is of the considered opinion that on account of her prolonged incarceration alone, she does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. 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 manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.28 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh