[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-70740-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-70740-2025
Vinay
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 19.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing No. 198 dated
16.09.2022 registered under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC at Police Station
Dujana, District Jhajjar. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-9637-2024
had been dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2025.
1 of 5
2. As per the allegations, on 16.09.2022, dead body of one person
was found lying on the road abutting the agricultural land of complainant
Dharampal. Injuries were found on the person of the dead body. A case under
Section 302 was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. On
17.09.2022, Jagdev Singh along with his family members identified the dead
body to be of that his son Mayank. He recorded his statement that the victim
was missing since the evening of 15.09.2022 and a missing report had been
lodged by them. He also stated that on making inquiries at his own level, he
had come to know that his son was taken by the petitioner along with co-
accused Vinayak and their other accomplices, in a verna car and after being
murdered, was thrown on the highway to destroy evidence. He disclosed that
both the petitioner and Vinayak were missing from their respective houses
since the night of 15.09.2022 and their phones were also switched off. The
petitioner and co-accused were nominated as such. They were arrested on
21.09.2022. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement
in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. The verna car used by
them at the time of commission of subject offence had already been got
recovered from them in another case registered at police station Jaffarpur
Kalan, New Delhi. The petitioner got recovered the clothing worn by him at
the time of occurrence. He demarcated the place where the dead body of the
victim was thrown and also the place where co-accused and himself, had
thrown the cell phone and footwear of the victim. Investigation now stands
concluded.
2 of 5
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his previous petition on 15.05.2025, the trial has not progressed
much further as only 21 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined
so far. Each day spent by him in custody, has furnished a reason afresh to seek
concession of bail. Trial will take further time to conclude. No useful purpose
would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued
that he deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present one
being a successive petition is not maintainable. There is no drastic change in
the circumstances. Trial is going on at a proper pace as 21 prosecution
witnesses including material witnesses stand examined. There is nothing to
show that there would be any further delay in conclusion of the trial. There
are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended
benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be
allowed.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
6. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being
second petition for grant of bail is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an
accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it
is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application,
to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different
from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not? Only in case
3 of 5
of some drastic and substantive change in the circumstances, subsequent
petition can be entertained and the court if choses to grant regular bail in
second petition, then cogent and lucid reasons are required to be record. In the
instant case, however, there is no such drastic change in the circumstances.
The previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15.05.2025
by passing a detailed order. The trial is going on at a proper pace as 21 out of
35 prosecution witnesses have been examined. As such, it can also not be
stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The
allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. While length of
incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it
cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section
302 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil
the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk
by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence. It is 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 any 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. That apart, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with evidence or threatening the complainant 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 matter of grant of bail.
4 of 5
It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody
is not sufficient ground 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). In light of the foregoing legal principles, this Court finds no
compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
9. Since the main petition has already been decided, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
23rd March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
