[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmeet Singh Alias Meeta vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.16078 of 2026
Jagmeet Singh @ Meeta ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.04.2026
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. Manoj R.Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
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 "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR
No.25 dated 11.02.2020 registered under Sections 302, 307, 34, 473, 411,
120-B, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1-A) of Arms Act, 1959 at
authenticity of this order /judgment
Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. His previous petition bearing
CRM-M-63852-2024 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated
06.11.2025.
2. As per the allegations, on the evening of 10.02.2020, the
complainant Jagdish Raj was present in his shop with his son Ashok Kumar
and Assistant Vishal when two youths reached there in a car. They were
having muffled facts. After alighting from the car, they started firing
indiscriminately with their pistols towards his son Ashok Kumar and also
fired shots towards Hitesh Mahajan @ HoneyMahajan who was present in a
Ahata abutting the shop of the complainant. Both Hitesh Mahajan and his
son Ashok Kumar were taken to hospital but his son had succumbed to the
injuries.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. During the course of investigation, accused Rajinder Singh @
Nikku and Lovepreet @ Love who was arrested in some other case suffered
disclosure statement in that case on the basis of which they were nominated
as accused in this case as well. On their disclosure, the present petitioner
along with the co-accused was nominated as additional accused. The
petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2020. The previous petition as filed by the
petitioner had been dismissed by this Court on 06.11.2025 by making the
following observations:-
"7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy
with the co-accused and also to have formed a membership of an
authenticity of this order /judgment
unlawful assembly with them on 10.02.2020 and in prosecution of
common object of that unlawful assembly, he, along with the co-
accused, is alleged to have used firearms, and the shots fired with the
same killed the victim Vishal and caused firearm injuries to PW-
Hitesh Mahajan @ Honey Mahajan. PW Hitesh Mahajan has since
been examined. Copy of his deposition as PW-4 has been placed on
record, which shows that he had duly identified the present petitioner
in the Court as one of the assailants, and also at the time of the Test
Identification Parade, and has supported the prosecution version. As
such, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from the fact that the
complainant and two eye-witnesses have not supported the
prosecution version. The allegations against the petitioner are serious
in nature. He along with co-accused stands accused of a heinous
crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment.
While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court
in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the
accusation of murder under Section 302 IPC and as such, is not a
sufficient ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. In view of the
above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
release of the petitioner may hamper the course of trial and
undermine the integrity thereof and, thus, this Court finds no
compelling grounds to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. The well
settled proposition of law is that mere prolonged period of custody is
not sufficient ground 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), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs.
Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). Keeping in
view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."
2026.04.23 17:32 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
authenticity of this order /judgment
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of over six
years. He was not named in the FIR and has been nominated on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be
admissible in evidence. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a
new ground to him to seek concession of bail. His prolonged incarceration is
militating against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The trial is still likely to take considerable time to conclude as
only 17 out of 41 witnesses have been examined so far. It is, therefore,
argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab while
relying upon the status report has argued that there are serious and specific
allegations against the petitioner. His previous petition had been dismissed
by passing a detailed order only on 06.11.2025 and shortly thereof, the
instant petition had been filed. There is no substantive or drastic change in
the circumstances. Apart from examining 17 prosecution witnesses, 08 have
been given up and only 16 witnesses remain to be examined. The petitioner
has been duly identified by injured eye-witness Hitesh Mahajan. His
prolonged incarceration alone cannot be considered to be reason for
extending benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner was one of the assailants who had fired shots
2026.04.23 17:32 upon the victims Ashok Kumar and Hitesh Mahajan. Hitesh Mahajan while
authenticity of this order /judgment
appearing as PW-4 has duly identified the petitioner as one of the assailants.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner just after four months after
dismissal of the previous petition. No doubt, second/successive regular bail
petition is maintainable in law and ought not to be rejected only on the
ground of maintainability thereof. However, it is well settled proposition of
law that for a second/successive bail petition to succeed, the petitioner
should show substantial change in the circumstances. Showing of a mere
superficial or ostensible change does not suffice. Taking into consideration
the fact that a considerable number of witnesses stand examined or given up
and the trial is proceeding at a proper pace and further the well settled
proposition of law to the effect that mere prolonged custody in heinous
crimes is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail coupled
with the fact that the petitioner has failed to point out any substantial or
drastic change in the circumstances from the date of dismissal of his
previous petition, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow the
petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
