[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sushil Kumar Alias Tinku vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026

CRM-M--49194-2025                                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

106-14                                               CRM-M-49194-2025


Sushil Kumar @ Tinku
                                                             ....Petitioner
                                            V/s
State of Haryana
                                                             ....Respondent
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 18.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
                                           *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.451

dated 11.11.2023, 11.11.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections Section

120-B, B, 201, 204, 302, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 72 72-A A of

the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) and Section

42 of Prisons Act at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar,

Haryana.

The petitioner has earlier applied for grant of regular bail

before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated on

20.03.2025.

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant

of regular bail, has been preferred by the petitioner on 01.09.2025.

2. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that the FIR in question has

been registered on the statement of Mukesh, who alleged that on 1 of 14

08.11.2023, his father namely Rishi Pal went to supply building material at

Village Harjoli Seller, Police Station Mullana, Mullana, District Ambala and returned

at about 05:00 PM under the influence of liquor. The complainant further

alleged that on 09.11.2023, his father again went with his friend Raj

Mohammad for some work at Ambala and returned home at about 05:00

PM. On reaching reaching home, his father had told the family members that he had

consumed liquor from a vend at village Tangel, Police Station Mullana,

District Ambala and since then his health deteriorated and his vision was

hazy. On 10.11.2023, the health of the father of the complainant further

deteriorated and he had lost his eyesight whereinafter he was admitted to

Civil Hospital, Trauma Centre, Yamuna Nagar Nagar. It has been further alleged

that during uring the course of treatment, the father of the complainant had died.

The complainant omplainant had alleged that his father had died on account of

consumption of spurious liquor on 08.11.2023 from the vend at village

Tangel. On the basis of the said statement, FIR in question was registered

and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, it

was revealed that one accused Mohit Rana alias Kala Rana used to supply

spurious liquor in the area, who is presently confined at Central Jail,

Ambala in another FIR. On production warrant, the accused Mohit Rana

had joined the the investigation and was arrested in the present case. He

suffered a disclosure statement that accused Ankit @ Mogli etc had

allegedly started manufacturing illicit liquor at village Dhanoura District

Ambala and sold the same in illegal manner to the vendo vendors rs of liquor vend

situated at village Mandebri District Yamunanagar. He has further revealed

that the accused Vishal Kumar @ Laddi and his partner Sandeep @ Sonu

2 of 14

and other liquor vendors indulged in the illegal business of liquor.

Thereafter, several accused used persons were arrested and their disclosure

statements were recorded pursuant to which the investigating agency

claimed to have unearthed a larger network allegedly involved in the

manufacture, supply and distribution of illicit and spurious liquor.

liquor

Consequently, nsequently, offences under Sections 302, 328, 120 120-B B IPC and relevant

provisions of the Excise Act were invoked against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated into the

FIR in question as he was neither named in the FIR nor attributed any role

in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further

iterated that the petitioner has no nexus whatsoe whatsoever ver with the manufacture,

distribution or sale of spurious liquor.

liquor It has been further contended that the

petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial stages of

investigation and has been subsequently arrayed as an accused only on

account of certain financial transactions between the petitioner and one

Mohinder Singh, a licensed liquor contractor. It has been further contended

that the petitioner is a registered financer and ha has merely extended financial

assistance to Mohinder Singh in the ordinary ordinary course of his business. It has

been further contended that there is no material to show that the petitioner

has any knowledge of illegal activities or that the funds advanced by him

have been used for manufacturing the illicit liquor. Furthermore, no

recovery has been effected from the petitioner and no call detail records

connects him with the co-accused co accused involved in the alleged illegal trade of

spurious liquor.

liquor It has further been contended that even in the statements

3 of 14

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C. and disclosure statements of co co-accused accused

persons, the petitioner has not been named. It has been further contended

that the petitioner has been in custody for substantial period and the trial has

progressed at a slow pace. Learned counsel has asserted that the prosecution

has cited large number of witnesses and the trial is likely to take

considerable time to conclude and hence the continued incarceration of the

petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the petitioner shall

undertake to abide abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court,

including not tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing

witnesses and not leaving the country without prior permission of the Court.

On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is

entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations are grave and

serious in nature as the case pertains to the manufacture and supply of

illicit/spurious liquor which ultimately resulted in the death of certain

persons. Learned State counsel has iterated that during the course of

investigation a larger conspiracy involving several persons engaged in the investigation,

manufacture and distribution of poisonous poisonous liquor has been unearthed.

According to learned State counsel, during the course of investigation, the

petitioner has been found to be associated with persons who were directly

involved in running the liquor vends through which the illicit liquor was wa

circulated. Furthermore, the petitioner is not a mere financer but form part

of a larger network facilitating the illegal liquor trade. According to learned

State counsel, the investigation has revealed that the petitioner ha has been

4 of 14

continuously financing financing the liquor business business. Learned State counsel has

further pointed out that the earlier petition of the petitioner for grant of

regular bail has already been dismissed and there is no substantial change in

circumstances Considering the gravity of the offenc circumstances. offence and the specific role

attributed to the petitioner, learned State counsel has prayed for the

dismissal of the instant petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

6. It would be apposite to refer fer herein to a judgment passed by

this Court in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:

PHHC:054064; relevant whereof reads as under:

PHHC:054064; under:-

9. The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made conspicuous, inter alia, in Article icle 21 of our Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law which permits curtailment of liberty of anti anti-social and anti-national national elements.

ts. Yet, liberty of an individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the rights of the collective of individuals vviz.

iz. the State/Society at large, also cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a bail plea, ea, the Court ought to take into account this core concept(s). 9.1 An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s one(s)) seeking regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions,

5 of 14

especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a pprovision rovision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be barring ring the filing of second/successive regular bail petition. 9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. Similar is the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Ergo, rgo, it can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and hence the postulation of res judicata does not apply to its realm.

9.3 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail petition(s).

9.4. The concordant legal position is that the essential pre-

pre requisite for consideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in ci circumstances rcumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner-accused accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earlier plea for bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution ion case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only illustrative in nature and cannot by any means be said to be exhaustive. 9.5 No rigid or universal criterion can possib possibly ly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of diff difference.

erence. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence.

10. As an epilogue gue 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.

6 of 14

II. Such second/successive ive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution 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 pplea(s) lea(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 circum circumstances stances 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 peti 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 ca cause use for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

7. The present petition is a second petition for grant of regular

bail by the petitioner.

petitioner. A second regular bail petition is indeed maintainable

under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in

circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law

that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or

technical to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy

of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is

available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial

assessment of o the case. The first bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed

7 of 14

as withdrawn on 20.03.2025 and no opinion on merits has been expressed

therein. However, in the interest of justice, this Court proceed to decide the

plea(s) raised on merits as well in the peculiar factual milieu of the present

case.

8. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the

court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and

principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and

the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court ourt must

evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating

the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of

the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court ourt must also assess the

likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the

probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension

of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing,

and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the

Court ourt must weigh the potential danger of grant of bail undermining the

administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference

in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Tripathi,, 2005 AIR Supreme

Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under:

"14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, po position sition and standing of the

8 of 14

accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, elhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179).

). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should ld exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non non-application application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension ofthreat to the complainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.

338."

This Court also in specific terms held that :

"the the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the iimpugned mpugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that at the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in

9 of 14

our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not en entitle title the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

9. Indubitably, the he allegations against the petitioner are grave in

nature. The material which has come on record, at this stage, prima facie

suggests that the petitioner specially attributed an active role in the alleged

incident. The gravamen of the FIR transpires that the instant case has arisen

on account of an incident wherein the deceased Rishi Pal al allegedly legedly

consumed liquor purchased from liquor vend situated near village Tangel Tang

and thereafter his health got deteriorated. Thereafter, the he deceased was taken

to the hospital where he ultimately succumbed. During the course of

investigation, the viscera and and blood samples of the deceased were sent for

forensic examination and as per the report of the Forensic Science

Laboratory, the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and Methyl Alcohol was

detected. The medical opinion on record indicates that the cause of death

was secondary to methyl alcohol poisoning and its complications complications. The

investigation conducted by the police further reveals that illicit liquor was

allegedly being manufactured at a factory situated at village Dhanaura,

District Ambala and was being supplied to various illegal liquor vends

operating in the surrounding areas. It is the case of the prosecution that the

liquor so manufactured was distributed through a network of accused

persons and the same ultimately reached the liquor vend from where the

deceased had allegedly purchased the liquor. During the course of 10 of 14

investigation, several accused persons were arrested and disclosure

statements were recorded which led the investigating agency to unravel an

alleged network engaged in the manufacture and distribut distribution ion of spurious

liquor through various liquor vends. As per the case of the prosecution, the t

material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates

that the petitioner was not a stranger to the network vide which the illicit

liquor was wa being circulated. The record prima facie reflects that the

petitioner has ha been engaged in repeated financial transactions with the main

accused Mohinder Singh, who was holding the liquor licences. The plea of

the petitioner that these transactions are pa part rt of a lawful financing business

does not persuade this Court. The stand of the investigating agency before

this Court is that such financial assistance has resulted in expansion of an

illicit liquor network. Furthermore, the frequency of the financial

transactions ransactions and the period during which the illegal activities have been

carried out, out are circumstances which cannot be ignored at this stage. The

Court also finds that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused during

investigation on the basis of cogent material which suggest his link with the

overall conspiracy. In cases involving criminal conspiracy, the direct

evidence is not often available and the involvement of an accused has to be

inferred from circumstantial evidence and surrounding facts. At this stage,

the material on record does indicate a prima facie nexus between the

petitioner and the main accused persons. The plea of the petitioner that he

was unaware of the illegal activities cannot be accepted at this stage stage. In the

considered opinion opinion of this Court, the culpability in the offences of this

nature, is not only limited to the accused who manufactures or supplies the

11 of 14

illicit substance but also extends to those who facilitate or support the same

in any manner with knowledge. The offences aalleged lleged against the petitioner

are grave in nature and involve serious allegations of conspiracy, illegal

manufacture and distribution of spurious liquor which resulted in multiple

deaths due to methyl alcohol poisoning. It is not in dispute that the

implication ation of the petitioner is based upon the material collected during the

course of investigation. It is also a matter of record that the investigation has

culminated in the filing of the challan as well as a supplementary challan

and charges have been framed framed by the Court below against the petitioner.

The record further reflects that the prosecution has cited a large number of

witnesses and the trial is currently at the stage of recording evidence.

10. The allegations in the instant case pertain to an incident

involving the manufacture and circulation of illicit liquor leading to loss of

human life which is a matter of serious concern. The prosecution case, at

this stage, prima facie indicates the existence of a conspiracy involving

multiple persons engaged in the supply and use of alcohol for the

preparation of spurious liquor.

liquor The contention of learned counsel that the

petitioner has ha no knowledge of any illegal activity is a matter of defence,

which cannot be examined at the stage of considering the plea for or grant of

regular bail. It is apt to mention herein that the petitioner has a long criminal

history involving a large number of cases registered against him.. Though in

some of the cases he has been released on bail but the nature of the cases

cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant of regular bail bail. The

criminal riminal antecedents of an accused are a relevant factor while considering

the prayer for bail, particularly where there is a reasonable apprehension

12 of 14

that the accused, accused, if released, may indulge in similar activities or may

attempt to influence witnesses. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by

the prosecution has brought forth the involvement of several persons in the

alleged illegal activity and the plea of the the petitioner that he has no nexus

whatsoever with the manufacture, distribution or sale of spurious liquor and

has been roped in merely on account of alleged association with co co-accused accused

person(s),, is a matter which requires examination during the course ooff trial.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the role attributed to the petitioner is

insignificant. The prosecution case specifically alleges that the involvement

of the petitioner surfaced during investigation on the basis of material

collected subsequently.

subsequ

11. Furthermore, it is true that the petitioner has been languishing

in custody for a considerable period but the seriousness of the allegations

and his criminal antecedents weigh heavily against him. The material which

has been placed on record does oes not show that the delay in trial is solely

attributable to the prosecution. In such circumstances, long custody custody, by

itself, cannot be treated as a ground for grant of bail. Att this stage, no

accentuating circumstances have been made out which may prima a facie

constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner,

especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on

record. It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the

very root of public order and societal conscience.

12. Considering the gravity of the offence, the stage of the trial and

the overall facts and circumstances emerging from the record, this Court

finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the t

13 of 14

considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

13. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hhereby ereby

dismissed.

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency

as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without

being influenced with this order.