[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rintu vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026

                                                                                                         1

                     CRM-
                     CRM-M-19188-
                           19188-2026




                     141
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                       CHANDIGARH

                                                         CRM-  19188-2026
                                                         CRM-M-19188-

                     Rintu
                                                                                             ....Petitioner
                                                                Versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                                            ...Respondent

                     Date of Decision:
                             Decision: April 27,
                                             27, 2026
                     Date of Uploading: April 27,
                                              27, 2026

                     CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present:-
                     Present:             Mr. Akash Khurcha Advocate for the petitioner.

                                          Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.

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

Present petition is the second attempt filed under Section 483 of

the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner petitioner, in case bearing FIR

No.83 dated 12.03.2023, registered for the off offences ences punishable under

Sections 302, 34 of IPC, at Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the

petitioner has committed gruesome murder of the brother of the complainant

by stabbing him multiple times with knife.

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

is in custody since 03.04.2023. Learned counsel has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question question. To buttress

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-19188- 19188-2026

this aspect of the argument, learned counsel relies upon the factum of one

FIR bearing No.23 dated 12.03.2023, registered under Sections 392, 411,

394, 397, 34 of IPC, at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh, wherein,

the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in an incident of snatching

pertaining to the time period 11:20 P.M. to 11:35 P.M. on 11.03.2023,

whereas, the petitioner in the present case is stated to be involved in a

murder case on the same date as also time period. Learned counsel has

further argued that the petitioner has already been acquitted by the learned

Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in the FIR No.23 ibid, vide judgment dated

07.04.2025 (appended as Annexure P-10 with CRM-17554-2026). Learned

counsel has urged that, in any case, all the material private prosecution

witnesses have been examined, in this case, and the petitioner has suffered

incarceration for more than 03 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that 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

26.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

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

available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 03.04.2023, whereinafter, the

investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been

presented on 21.06.2023. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited and

it is conceded case before this Court that 05 prosecution witnesses have been

examined and 01 has been given up till date.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-19188- 19188-2026

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of

Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. 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.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."

The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issued,

which shall essentially 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 26.04.2026 filed by learned

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

of 03 years and 19 days.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-19188- 19188-2026

6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is

stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a

ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the

petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular

bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of

the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.

and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of

the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)

RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022

titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and

Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

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

petitioner to secure regular bail. The first petition was dismissed as

withdrawn on 03.02.2026. However, keeping in view the entirety of the

factual milieu of the case in hand; especially, extended custody of the

petitioner & pace of trial; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the

instant petition. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a

CRA--S-2332 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:

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.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-19188- 19188-2026

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 an

undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

allowed Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-19188- 19188-2026

and shall not change his cell-phone number 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