IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 Brahampal @ Biram Pal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 24.08.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 26.08.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 26.08.2026 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. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Balraj Singh Gujjar, Advocate, for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 -2- petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.165 dated 08.04.2022 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (For short “Act, 1959”) (Sections 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Ind. Sector-29, Panipat, District Panipat. His first petition bearing CRM-M-39970-2024 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 and the Special Leave to Appeal as filed against the same had been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2025. 2. The petitioner has been booked for commission of the aforementioned offences on the allegations that on 08.04.2022, he along with the co-accused had killed the victim Sandeep by firing shot with a countrymade pistol upon him. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his previous petition had been dismissed on 10.01.2025. A period of more than 01 year and 07 months has elapsed since then. However, there is not much progress in the trial and it is still likely to take considerable time to conclude. He has suffered incarceration of a period of more than 04 years and 04 months. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. He had been given benefit of interim bail for some time and did not misuse the concession of the same. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh reason to him to seek bail. His antecedents are clean. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India to release on bail. It is, MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 -3- therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petition is not maintainable as it is the successive petition. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The trial is going on at a good pace as 10 out of 27 witnesses have been examined and 01 has been given up and as such, it cannot be stated that there would be any further delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than 04 years and 04 months. Out of 27 prosecution witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, it is apparent that the trial will take further time to conclude. 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. 7. 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 MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 -4- 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 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. 8. 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 MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 -5- indisputable that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 9. 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 specified periods, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of specific provisions. 10. 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) The petitioner 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 MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.25634 of 2026 -6- 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) 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. 11. 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. 12. 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) 26.08.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.08.26 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh