Seema vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 3940 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3940 P&H
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

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

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

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

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.