IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 Suraj Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 25.08.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.08.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 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. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The instant one is the third 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.168 MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -2- dated 03.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 323, 341, 148 and 149 of IPC (Section 302 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Ludhiana. His first petition bearing CRM-M- 29772-2023 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.07.2023. His second petition bearing CRM-M-840-2024 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.08.2024. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Amarjit Kaur alleging therein that on 30.10.2022, she received a call from Pankaj, a friend of her son Sandeep Singh informing that her son had sustained some injuries and was taken to a hospital at Ludhiana in an unconscious condition. Since the complainant had gone outside, she instructed her family members to rush to the hospital who reached there and came to know that he was referred to DMC hospital Ludhiana. The complainant came to know that accused Deepak, Vipan and Vivek accompanied by 15-20 other accomplices had assaulted the victim Sandeep and caused injuries to him with intent to kill him. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Sanjay Singh a friend of the victim was joined into investigation who on scrutiny of the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the vicinity identified the petitioner and co-accused Ram Sewak, Deepak, Vivek, Vipin and Roshan as the assailants. The petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 04.11.2022. The co-accused Deepak and Ram Sewak were also arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -3- involvement in the crime. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The victim subsequently died and offence under Section 302 of IPC has been added. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. There is delay of 5 days in lodging of the FIR. The co-accused Deepak, Vipan, Vivek and Ram Sewak have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. His custody is prolonged which militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India to release on bail. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground to him to seek concession of bail. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as none out of 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition being a successive one is not maintainable. It is further argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the victim who had sustained injuries which were opined to be dangerous to life. The victim has died during the course of his treatment on 01.01.2026. His identity was established on the basis of CCTV footage and MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -4- identification of eye-witness Sanjay Singh. The petitioner has undergone custody of more than 3 years and 9 months. Obviously, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Even complainant is stated to have died. So far as the 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. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. Even in cases of serious offences, where some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, if such period becomes unduly long, the same is against the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 INSC 645, it had been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that, howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -5- 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further observed that the over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty, cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be and direction was given for release of appellant on bail. 9. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 to the effect that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 10. The question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case cited as Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein while considering the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, it was observed that the provisions contained in Section 436-A of Criminal Procedure Code which requires inter alia, the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -6- specified periods, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of specific provisions. 11. In view of the discussion as made above with regard to the position of law and applying the same to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail since his incarceration has been prolonged and there are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by the learned trial Court. (iii) He shall provide details of his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (iv) He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card (if any) and details of his mobile phone number(s) MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15389 of 2026 -7- to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 12. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall also be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail. 13. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh