CRM-M- 2479 IN THE ATINDERPAL STATE OF PU 1 The d 2 The d 3 The d websi 4 Whet prono prono 5 The d judgm CORAM: HO Present: Mr Mr Ms *** MANISHA BA 1. Th Section 483 of for grant of reg registered unde 302 of IPC adde 2. Th unlawful assem 24791-2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CR RPAL SINGH @ PANNU Versus PUNJAB The date when the judgment is reserv The date when the judgment is pronou The date when the judgment is upload website Whether only operative part of the jud pronounced or whether the full judgm pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronounceme judgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Sen Mr. Kanwarnoor Singh Sethi, Advo Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** A BATRA, J. The instant one is the third petitio 83 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha San regular bail in case arising out of under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, C added later on) at Police Station City The petitioner is alleged to hav assembly and in prosecution of comm JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-24791-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent reserved 19.08.2026 pronounced 21.08.2026 uploaded on the 21.08.2026 the judgment is judgment is Full ncement of full Not applicable MANISHA BATRA ta, Senior Advocate with Advocate for the petitioner njab petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) out of FIR No.89 dated 31.03.2018 , 148, 149 and 427 of IPC (Section on City Rajpura, District Patiala. o have formed membership of an common object thereof is alleged to nder SS”) 2018 ction f an ed to AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2479 have caused the He is in custody 3. It suffered incarce now. The trial witnesses have against his fund of India. Each him to seek co circumstances. It is, therefore, buttress his arg upon the author 2026(2) RCR Maharashtra in 04.05.2026 and (Crl) No.99 of 2 4. Pe being a success by the petitione hence, argued th 5. Th counsel for the p 24791-2026 (O&M) 2 sed the homicidal death of victims San ustody since 14.04.2018. It is argued by learned counsel f incarceration of a period of more tha e trial has not progressed so far as o have been examined so far. His pro is fundamental right guaranteed under Each day spent by him in custody ha eek concession of bail and amounts nces. His further incarceration would efore, argued that he deserves to be is arguments, learned counsel for the authorities cited as Vaibhav Singh v CR (Criminal) 799, Sahil Mano tra in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. and Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu 9 of 2026 decided on 16.07.2026. Per contra, learned State counsel uccessive one is not maintainable, the etitioner having been dismissed by p gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival s or the parties at considerable length. ms Sandeep Singh and Sohan Singh. unsel for the petitioner that he has re than 08 years and 04 months by ar as only 03 out of 31 prosecution is prolonged incarceration militates under Article 21 of the Constitution ody has furnished a reason afresh to ounts to substantial change in the would not serve the ends of justice. to be extended benefit of bail. To or the petitioner has placed reliance gh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SC) anoj Machare v. The State of (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 decided on mmu & Kashmir in Writ Petition ounsel has argued that the petition , the previous petitions being filed by passing detailed orders. It is, eserve to be allowed. rival submissions made by learned ingh. has s by ution itates ution sh to the stice. To iance C) of on ion tition filed It is, rned AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2479 6. Th than 08 years an to conclude. T offences with th show that the d manner whatsoe concerned, und proposition of l the successive deprivation of consonance wit India. In Jave another 2024(9 howsoever, seri Bail is not to b State or any p wherewithal to a speedy trial as or any other pr ground that the applies irrespec object of bail is proper test to b should be gran 24791-2026 (O&M) 3 The petitioner has undergone cust ears and 04 months. The trial is still l de. The petitioner has been linked with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Th t the delay in conclusion of the trial hatsoever. So far as question of ma d, undoubtedly it is a successive n of law is that if there is some drasti essive petition is maintainable. It n of personal liberty without ensu ce with the right guaranteed by Arti Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs Th 024(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Ap serious a crime may be, an accuse t to be withheld as a punishment. It any prosecuting agency including hal to provide or protect the fundamen trial as enshrined under Article 21 of t her prosecuting agency should not op at the crime committed, is serious. A respective of the nature of the crime. il is to secure the attendance of th st to be applied is in the solution of th e granted or refused or whether it is e custody for over a period of more still likely to take considerable time linked with commission of subject C. There is no material on record to e trial is attributable to him in any of maintainability of this petition is essive petition. The well-settled drastic change in the circumstances, . It is equally well settled that t ensuring speedy trial is not in y Article 21 of the Constitution of s The State of Maharashtra and le Apex Court had observed that accused has a right to speedy trial. nt. It was also observed that if the ding the Court concerned has no damental right of an accused to have 21 of the Constitution, then the State not oppose the plea for bail on the ious. Article 21 of the Constitution rime. It is also well-settled that the e of the accused at the trial and the n of the question is whether the bail r it is probable that the party will more time bject rd to any on is ttled nces, that t in n of nd that trial. f the s no have State n the ution t the d the bail will AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2479 appear to take i punishment. Re v. State of Punj 7. So delay in conclu Satender Kuma had observed th requires inter conclude within in the absence period spent by conclude shortl circumstance pe ordered to be surety bonds to Court/Duty Mag 8. It i for the purpose bearing on the m 9. Sin any, is rendered 21.08.2026 Amit Sharma 24791-2026 (O&M) 4 take its trial and it is indisputable that nt. Reference in this regard can be m Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Vaib So far as the question of prolonge conclusion of the trial is concerned, t umar Antil v. Central Bureau of In rved that the provisions contained in S ter alia the accused to be enlarge within specified period, would apply t sence of any specific provisions. T ent by the petitioner in custody, the shortly, the clean antecedents of the nce peculiar to this case, the petition i o be released on bail subject to his f nds to the satisfaction of the learned ty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observati urpose of deciding the present petitio n the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been ndered infructuous. (M Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No le that bail is not to be withheld as a be made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vaibha Singh (supra). olonged incarceration and inordinate rned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 d in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which enlarged on bail if the trial is not apply to under-trial prisoners as well ns. Taking into consideration the , the fact that trial is not likely to be of the petitioner and the facts and tition is allowed and the petitioner is o his furnishing personal as well as arned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial servation made herein above is only petition and the same shall have no been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No as a ba e rt in 51 hich not well the to be and er is ll as /trial only e no n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.