CRM-M-26381-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (227) CRM-M-26381-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.07.2026 PARVEER SINGH ALIAS PIRU ALIAS PARVEEN SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J 1. The instant one is the second petition for grant of regular bail as filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No.174 dated 20.10.2024 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 103(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 29 of Arms Act and Sections 238 and 49 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, Haryana. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-46772-2025 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 by making the following observations:- “7. As per the allegations, a conspiracy was hatched between the petitioner and the co-accused and in pursuance of the same, the present petitioner and co-accused Gurnam Singh had committed AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.28 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26381-2026 (O&M) -2- murder of the victim Harbilash Singh on 19.10.2024 by firing shots with pistol upon him. The co-accused Gurnam Singh in his disclosure statement has disclosed about the joining of the petitioner in the conspiracy and his active involvement in the killing of the victim by firing shot with the same. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Simply because the complainant has turned hostile, the petitioner cannot be presumed to be innocent. The trial is going on at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to suggest that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. The son of the victim who is a material witness is yet to be examined. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed." 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of his previous petition, there is a material change in the circumstances as the co-accused Dalbir Singh alias Dalli has been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour and hence he deserves to be given the same concession. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petition being a successive petition is not maintainable. The case of the petitioner is not at parity with the case of the co-accused who has been extended benefit of bail. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean. The trial is going on at a proper pace as 14 out of 29 prosecution witnesses already stand examined and there is nothing to AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.28 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26381-2026 (O&M) -3- show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The petitioner is alleged to be one of the assailants of the victim. The motorcycle used in commission of the subject offence was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioner and co-accused Gurnam Singh. The accused Dalbir Singh alia Dalli who has been extended benefit of bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court was not amongst the actual assailants and he was nominated on the basis of suspicion. As such, the case of the co-accused Dalbir Singh alia Dalli cannot be treated to be at parity with the case of the present petitioner. Undoubtedly, an accused has right to move a successive petition for grant of bail. However, while entertaining such application/petition, the Court is required to see as to whether there is any drastic and substantive change in the circumstances or not? In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point out any such substantive change in the circumstances. On account of his prolonged incarceration alone, he cannot be held entitled for release on bail. Reference in this context can be made 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). 6. Taking into consideration, the above discussed facts peculiar to this case, antecedents of the petitioner and the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail, this Court is of the considered opinion, the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.28 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-26381-2026 (O&M) -4- petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 28.07.2026 Amit Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.28 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.