[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritesh Alias Reetesh vs State Of Haryana on 10 March, 2026
CRM-M No.2137 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
*****
CRM-M No.2137 of 2026
Date of decision : 10.3.2026
Date of uploading : 10.3.2026
Ritesh @ Reetesh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Prabhat Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present 2nd 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 FIR No.30 dated 14.2.2023 under
Sections 302, 34 of the IPC (Sections 392, 397, 279, 336 & 427 of IPC),
registered at Police Station Sector-6, Dharuhera, District Rewari.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'To, SHO PS Sector 6 Dharuhera. It is requested that I Hemender son of
Jai Singh village Bichpuri PS Aliganj District Eta U.P and I am a driver
by profession and we are two brothers name of elder brother is Ratan Pal
aged about 42 years, and I am the younger one. We both are married.
Ratan Pal has three children. Ratan Pal also drives a truck and now he
drives canter in Gujrat. On 13.02.2023 at around 04:00 PM, he from his
1 of 6
mobile no. 94719960264 called me at my mobile no. 70557-82568 and
informed me that he has reached near Bijender Petrol Pump near
Haryana Border and from here he will refill the fuel tank and will take
money. That at around 12:00 AM Dev Ji owner of canter from his mobile
no.98252-95493 called me and he told me that he has received a phone
call from Dharuhera Police Station and tanker of Ratan Pal is standing
near Hero Company, Dharuhera in which Ratan Pal is lying dead. Upon
receiving such information, I, along with my Nephew namely Sonu and
Shivam and other persons, reached at Dharuhera. Where, I saw that
tanker of my brother bearing registration No. GJ-12-BX-9215 is standing
at Hero Chowk on service road near Shri Balaji Dharam Kanta and on the
right side another vehicle is standing and dead body of Ratan Pal is
transferred by the Police in the vehicle of Government Hospital, Rewari.
Then, I reached at Mortuary in Rewari where I saw that someone has
choked the neck of my brother Ratan Pal with orange color cloth
(Gamcha). Some unknown persons have killed my brother by choking his
neck with orange color cloth (Gamcha). Accused be searched and strict
legal action be taken against them. Postmortem of the dead body of my
brother be done and his dead body be given to us Sd/Hemender Singh,
complainant Hemender son of Jai Singh resident of village Bichpuri,
District Eta, Uttar Pradesh Mobile No.70557-82568 dated 14.02.2023.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 18.2.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further submitted that the case in hand is not one of eye-
witness account but is based primarily on circumstantial evidence.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for
the last more than 3 years with no criminal antecedents. Thus, regular
bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
2 of 6
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.3.2026
in Court, 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 18.2.2023 wherein after
investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 16.4.2023 and
subsequently filed. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it
is not in dispute that only 5 have been examined till date. It is thus
indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be
apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024;
relevant whereof reads as under:-
"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."
3 of 6
6.1 The rival contentions raised at Bar give 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.
6.2 Indubitably, the plea in hand is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner
to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed on 24.8.2025 on merits thereof. However, keeping in view the
entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended
incarceration of the petitioner and the pace of the trial and the witnesses
not coming forward as is inter alia reflected from the zimni orders dated
15.7.2025 and 4.11.2025, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the
instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to
a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-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.
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
4 of 6
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."
6.3 As per custody certificate dated 9.3.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3
years and 22 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
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. 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, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
5 of 6
(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.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
10.3.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
