CRM-M-28020-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CRM-M-28020-2026 Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Date of uploading : 28.07.2026 Satpal @ Kala ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Tapish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.116 dated 13.05.2025 under Sections 103(1), 115, 190, 191(3), 238(a), 303, 324(4), 331(6) of BNS, registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “The summary of the writing is like this: Statement of Neelam wife of Kulwinder Singh alias Kala son of Kuldeep Singh, resident of Bichhian, District Kaithal, aged 36 years, Mobile No. 9963993798. Stated that I am resident of the above mentioned name address and doing the household work. I have two sons. The name of my elder son is Abhishek, who lives in Village Dohar in his relations and is studying there itself. My younger son namely Arman aged 16 years is studying in Twelfth Class. We have been living by constructing the house in our fields, where in our neighbour at a distance of approximately two acres, there are houses of Suresh son of Mian and Sukhdev son of Mian, resident of Bichhian. A kacha road from our house connects to a paved road and on this paved road, there are houses of Suresh and Sukhdev. Many times, Suresh after coming out of his house urinated in open, to which my husband many times objected and due JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28020-2026 -2- to this reason, many times the minor altercation of my husband has also taken place with them. On 12.05.2025 at about 5:00 PM, our minor altercation had taken place with Suresh Kumar and Sanjeev son of Sukhdev in our field in the kacha road and from them my younger son Arman had brought my husband to our house and Suresh etc of other party had also gone away to their house. Thereafter at about 08:30 PM, Suresh son of Mian Singh, Sanjeev son of Sukhdev, Vikram son of Suresh came to our house and raised lalkara that you may come out, then we closed the main gate of our house, then Sanjeev Kumar after scaling over the gate came in the courtyard of our house, then Sanjeev Kumar opened the gate of our house from inside and in the meanwhile Suresh son of Mian Singh and Vikram son of Suresh also entered inside our house. There were dandas in their hands. Suresh with the binda carried in his hand hit on the head of my husband and the blood started oozing from the head of my husband, thereafter Suresh, Sanjeev and Vikram took away my husband outside by way of dragging and after taking him away near the heap of dung lying in our field, inflicted injuries with dandas bindas. Then my husband became unconscious, while lying waylaid who has also been inflicted injuries. Thereafter Raj Kumar, Sukhdev son of Mian Singh also came at the spot and they also gave kick blow to my husband. Thereafter from the family of accused persons, Beera son of Mian Singh after coming at the spot got rescued my husband and got stopped giving beatings. Thereafter Satpal alias Kala son of Mian Singh came at the spot and gave kick blow below the abdomen of my husband. Therafter upon receipt of our information, Shubham son of Mahender, resident of Dohar and Jagdis son of Jeet, resident of Bichhian came, upon making arrangement of a private vehicle along with them, we took away my husband to Government Hospital, Guhla, where the doctor after giving first aid to my husband, referred him for better treatment, because my husband had sustained deep/grievous injury in his head, now the treatment of my husband Kulwinder Singh has been going on in Signas Hospital, Kaithal, whose condition has been serious. When the accused persons had come to our house, then the accused persons had also taken away the tab of my son Arman. I hereby request you that legal action may kindly be taken against the accused Suresh, Sukhdev, Raj Kumar, Satpal alias Kala sons of Mian Singh, Sanjeev son of Sukhdev and Vikram son of Suresh Kumar, A residents of Village Bichhian. We have also inflicted injuries to the accused persons in our defence. I have got record my statement in the presence of my son Arman, understood, the same is correct. Sd/- Neela, Attested Vijender Singh, SI, PS Cheeka, Dated 13.05.2025. I, Arman son of Kulwinder alias Kala, resident hereby verify the above mentioned statement of my mother Neelam, which is correct. I have gone through the same, the same is correct. Sd/- Arman, Attested Vijender Singh, SI, PS Cheeka, Dated 13.05.2025..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that prime prosecution witnesses namely PW-Neelam FIR-complainant and PW-Arman (son of deceased) have turned hostile, and thus the trial is not likely to culminate into JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28020-2026 -3- conviction. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year and is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 26.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 31.05.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 13.08.2025. Total 26 prosecution witnesses have been cited but 2 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28020-2026 -4- brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” The rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties; including the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of hostile witnesses; shall be gone into during the course of the trial. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the extended incarceration of the petitioner and the hostile testimony of the prime prosecution witnesses, namely PW-Neelam and PW-Arman. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 26.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 1 month and 25 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.03.2026 passed in CRM-M- 3310-2026 (Annexure P-6). Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28020-2026 -5- 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.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. 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 CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28020-2026 -6- (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 cell-phone 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.28 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document