Seema vs State Of Haryana

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Seema vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

           CRM-M-15555--2026 (O&M)                                     1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH


                                                                           CRM-M-15555-2026 (O&M)
           SEEMA
                                                                                              ...
                                                                                               .. Petitioner

                                                            Versus

           STATE OF HARYANA

                                                                                             ...Respondent
           1                    The date when the judgment is reserved                27.04.2026
           2                    The date when the judgment is pronounced              29.04.2026
           3                    The date when the judgment is uploaded on the         29.04.2026
                                website
           4                    Whether only operative part of the judgment is        Full
                                pronounced or whether the full judgment is
                                pronounced
           5                    The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full       Not applicable
                                judgment and reasons thereof.

           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
           Present:                 Mr.r. Dushyant Moudgil, Advocate
                                                             dvocate for the petitioner
                                    (through video conferencing)

                                    Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

                                                              ****

           MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant one is the third petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.198 198 dated 27.03.2024 registered under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC at Police Station, Sector 10, Gurugram. Her first petition had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2025 and the second petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

26.02.2026.

.02.2026. The following observations were made by this Court while dismissing the first petition :-

:

"The The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co co--

accused with whom she was allegedly having illicit relationship and in pursuance of that that conspiracy, the co co-accused accused Shekhar is alleged to have committed murder of the victim on 26.03.2024. As per the prosecution case, the call detail record of the cell phones of both the petitioner and the co-accused co accused has been collected which shows their complicity complicity with each other and that even at the time of occurrence, they were in touch. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Keeping in view the gravity thereof, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

2. It is argued by by learned counsel for the petitioner that she is in custody for a period of over 02 years. There is no eye eye-witness witness to the occurrence.

She was not admittedly present at the spot of murder of the victim. The allegations against her are of hatching a conspiracy conspiracy but no evidence has been collected to prove her complicity in the crime. Each day spent by her in custody has furnished a new ground in her favour to seek bail afresh. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future, as only 07 out ooff 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is also submitted that 05 material AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

prosecution witnesses have not implicated the petitioner in commission of the subject offences. PW Neelam, Neelam sister of the victim has even turned hostile. No usefull purpose would be served by detaining her in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the petition is not maintainable bbeing eing a successive one.

There are no o material changes change in the circumstances. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The trial is going at a proper pace. It is, therefore, 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. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition is concerned, undoubtedly subsequent/successive petition for regular bail is maintainable but for that purpose the accused is required to show some substantial and drastic change in the circumstances. In the instant case, the first petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order and by observing that the call detail record of the cell phones of the petitioner and the co-accused accused has shown that even at the time of occurrence occurrence, they were in touch with each other. This fact is sufficient to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. She is accused accused of hatching a conspiracy with the co co--

accused who had actually committed murder of the victim. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The trial is going at a proper pace and there is nothing to show that there would be undue delay in conclusion of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

the trial. The well settled proposition of law is that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC) (SC),, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through hrough CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). It is also well-settled well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be an anyy exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. Tha Thatt apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matterr of grant of bail. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail only on the ground of period spent by him in custody. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the quantum of sentence for which the conviction may entail and the attendant attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

Accordingly,, the same is dismissed.

integrity of this order/judgment.

6. Since the main petition p has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.