CRM-M-30216-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30216-2026 (O&M) FARUKH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 14.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.08.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.08.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sanawar Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.508 dated 01.07.2023 registered under Section 379B and 34 of IPC [Sections 120B, 201, 411 of IPC added later on] at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-4160-2026 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.18 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30216-2026 (O&M) 2 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that while dismissing his previous petition bearing CRM-M-4160-2026 on 04.02.2026, this Court had given specific direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the prosecution evidence within a period of three months from the date next fixed before it and had given liberty to him to move fresh application for grant of regular bail if the prosecution evidence was not concluded by that time. It is argued that a period of more than five months has elapsed, but the trial has not been concluded so far. Four witnesses are still to be examined. His prolonged incarceration of more than two years militates against his fundamental right of liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present one being successive petition is not maintainable. The trial is at the verge of conclusion. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean as he has been involved in six more cases. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 5. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to be involved in snatching of the truck driven by the complainant on 01.07.2023. He has been in custody since 29.07.2024. There is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.18 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30216-2026 (O&M) 3 future as a substantial number of witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner is in custody for a period of over two years. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the right of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since settled proposition of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is also well settled proposition of law that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused, he becomes entitled to be released on bail. Since the trial of this case, apparently and evidently is shown to have been delayed, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. It is also well settled preposition of law that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception and that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentence. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice the case of either of the parties, the petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.18 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30216-2026 (O&M) 4 to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 6. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.18 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.