CRM-M No.42652 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.42652 of 2026 Arun Kumar @ Jeewan Kumar @ Rajesh Verma ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 01.09.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.09.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026 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. D.S. Bhinder, Advocate, Ms. Navkiran Bajwa, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Solanki, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short MANJU 2026.09.03 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.42652 of 2026 -2- “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.111 dated 06.12.2014 registered under Sections 328, 457, 380 and 489 of IPC at Police Station Bakshiwala, District Patiala. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner bearing CRM-M-2626-2026 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Though his previous petition had been dismissed on the ground that the case was at the defence stage, however, for the purpose of preparing his defence and producing witnesses for that purpose, he deserves to be released on bail. There is no likelihood of his influencing the witnesses. His continued incarceration at this stage will cripple his defence. Each day spent by him in custody, has amounted to a substantial change in the circumstances. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable being a successive one and, therefore, it is argued that the same does not deserve to be allowed. 4. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 5. The petitioner had been arrested in this case as on 04.07.2025 and is in continuous custody. The prosecution evidence has concluded. It is well settled proposition of law that a criminal trial is not a one sided affair and it embodies a system where both the prosecution and defence must be afforded MANJU 2026.09.03 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.42652 of 2026 -3- an equal opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. For the purpose of effecting his right to lead defence evidence which is an alienable right, physical liberty of accused is essential. In this context, reference can be made to the observations given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 429, wherein it was observed that to answer the test of reasonableness, the contrary factors must be weighed subject to the need for securing presence of the bail applicant. It was observed that it made sense to assume that a man on bail had a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. As mentioned earlier, the case is at the stage of producing defence evidence and for the purpose of producing the same, the petitioner deserves to be extended benefit of bail and his further detention as undetrial is not warranted. In view of the discussion as made above but without delving deep into the rival contentions, 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 further subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him; (ii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless his presence is exempted; MANJU 2026.09.03 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.42652 of 2026 -4- (iii) he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the learned trial Court and (v) he shall not prolong the conclusion of trial in any manner whatsoever. 6. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail. 7. 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) 03.09.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.09.03 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh