[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Alias Nanak vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.3637 of 2026
Vishal @ Nanak ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 30.04.2026
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. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate and
Mr. Jugraj Singh Chouhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
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
authenticity of this order /judgment
No.0072 dated 14.12.2022 registered under Sections 302, 307, 394, 397 and
34 of IPC at Police Station GRP Rohtak, District GRP Ambala Cantt. The
previous petition bearing CRM-M-28778-2025 had been dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 by making the following observations:-
"6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged
to have intercepted the victim- Vikas, complainant and their
companion Ramakesh on the night of 13.12.2022 and is alleged
to have committed the offence of dacoity and on resistance
made by the victim Vikas, who to snatch his money is alleged
to have inflicted several blows with a knife on his person
thereby causing his homicidal death. The allegations against the
petitioner are quite grave and serious in nature. He was duly
identified by the complainant. The present petition has been
filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his
prolonged custody. 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), 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 gravity of the
allegations as levelled against the petitioner, quantum of
sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts
and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment
upon the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly,
authenticity of this order /judgment
the same is dismissed."
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 3
years and 4 months. The trial has not progressed much further and chances
of conclusion of the same in near future are bleak. His continued detention
would not serve any useful purpose. One witness Rajesh Kumar Gupta has
turned hostile. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground
to him to seek concession of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates
against his fundamental right of personal liberty. It is, therefore, argued that
the petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned
Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently argued that the
petition is not maintainable being a successive petition. The previous
petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed
order. There is no substantial or drastic change in the circumstances. Only
on account of his prolonged custody, the petitioner cannot claim concession
of bail. The trial is going on at a proper pace as 07 out of 30 prosecution
witnesses stand examined. It may be expedited further. It is, therefore,
argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
5. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to
2026.04.30 10:34 have robbed the victim Vikas and then to have inflicted blows with knife on
authenticity of this order /judgment
his person thereby causing his death. The complainant who was
accompanying the victim at the fateful night, has identified him. The fact
that one of the witnesses has turned hostile cannot be considered to be a
reason for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner as he was not an eye
witness to the occurrence. The allegations against him are serious in nature.
There is no substantial or drastic change in the circumstances. Undoubtedly,
a successive petition for grant of bail is maintainable but for such petition to
be allowed, the petitioner must show some substantial change in
circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would
not suffice. Reference in this regard can be had to the observations made by
this Court in Rafiq Khan Versus State of Haryana and another,
2024:PHHC:054064. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts,
the serious nature of the accusations as levelled against the petitioner, the
quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts
and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition
does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
6. 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)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
