Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2025

                                                                            1

CRM-
CRM-M-64740-
      64740-2025




215
215
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                               CRM-
                               CRM-M-64740-
                                     64740-2025

Manbir Singh
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                                                   Petitioner
                                       Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                ....Respondent

Date of decision: November 21,
                           21, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 21, 2025

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.185 dated 20.07.2018,,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 & 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') (Sections 307 & 326 of IPC

added later on), on) at Police Station Gate Hakima, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on n 20.07.2018, at

about 6:00 p.m., Ranbir Singh was diverting water from the government

water channel near his house. Rajveer Singh, son of the complainant,

stopped him from doing so, upon which Ranbir Singh assaulted him. In the

meantime, Ravinder Kaur, wife of Ranbir Singh, arrived at the spot aand nd

1 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-64740- 64740-2025

instigated Ranbir Singh to "teach them a lesson." Acting on this, Ranbir

Singh struck Rajveer Singh on the head with the hilt of a kahi, causing him

to fall to the ground. While Rajveer Singh was lying on the ground, Manbir

Singh (petitioner herein) delivered a kahi blow to the right side of his

forehead, impacting his forehead and eye. Upon witnessing this, Sandeep

Singh, another son of the complainant, moved forward to rescue his brother.

Manbir Singh then struck Sandeep Singh on the head with a kahi with the

intention to kill him, causing him to fall down. Thereafter, Ranbir Singh,

Manbir Singh, and Ravinder Kaur collectively delivered kick blows to

Sandeep Singh while he lay on the ground. On hearing the complainant's

cries, all the accused fled the scene carrying their respective weapons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 24.04.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further argued that the petitioner was earlier extended the

concession of anticipatory bail, but the petitioner could not appear before the

concerned Court in time since he had to go to Malaysia for his employment

purposes. Learned counsel has urged that from the factual milieu of the case

in hand, no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out. Learned counsel

has further iterated that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus,

regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature,

and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

20.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

2 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-64740- 64740-2025

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2025. It is not in dispute

before this Court that the investigation, even qua the petitioner, is complete

and the trial is underway. It is further not in dispute that earlier the petitioner

was extended the concession of anticipatory bail. The rival contentions

raised at Bar given rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon

during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve

deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial.

Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the

petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the

prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 20.11.2025 filed by learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 06 months & 26 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the

petitioner to secure regular bail. The last plea of the petitioner was dismissed

as withdraw on 09.10.2025. However, keeping in view the entirety of the

factual matrix of the case in hand; especially, the petitioner having suffered

extended incarceration and pace of trial; this Court is inclined to

affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this

CRA--S-2332 regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA 2332--

2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant

whereof reads as under:

"10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

3 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-64740- 64740-2025

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is

not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport(s), if any, with the trial Court.

4 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-64740- 64740-2025

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number(s) to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number(s) without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous

application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE November 21, 21, 2025 mahavir