Dismissed¶28

Chirag Alias Kalu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2025CRM-M/12856/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second regular bail petition; prolonged incarceration; trial delay; no witness examined; charges not framed; serious offence; Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC; unlawful assembly Section 149 IPC; Section 52 Prisons Act; Central Jail Tarn Taran; drastic change in circumstances between successive bail applications; CRM-M-12856-2025; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Manisha Batra, J; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

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, is not a sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail where the offence alleged is serious. ¶28

Chirag Alias Kalu Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in his second petition on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and non-progress of trial, despite serious allegations, the dismissal of his earlier bail petition, and the absence of any substantive change in circumstances.

¶28

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

For a successive (second) bail application to be allowed, there must be a drastic change in circumstances during the intervening period; no such change existed here, nor any substantive or specious change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition.

¶28

Key takeaways

The observations made while dismissing the bail petition shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Second petition for regular bail arising out of FIR No. 89 dated 27.02.2023, Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC and Section 52 Prisons Act (Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 323, 324 IPC, Section 52-F Prisons Act 1894 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act added later) - Earlier petition CRM-M-9078-2024 dismissed on 11.07.2024 - Grounds urged: prolonged incarceration, no witness examined, charges not framed - Held: mere prolonged period of custody or likely delay in trial, by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration, are not sufficient grounds for bail when the offence alleged is serious; a drastic change in circumstances between two applications is required for a successive application to be allowed; no substantive change shown - Reliance placed on Parmod Kumar Saxena v. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC); Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242; State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280 (SC) - Petition dismissed; observations not an expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-12856-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-12856-2025 Reserved on: 17^th July, 2025 Pronounced on: 23^rd July, 2025

Chirag @ Kalu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S. Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Deepender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶15

The instant one is the second petition for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 89 dated 27.02.2023 registered under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 52 of Prisons Act (120-B, 109, 115, 323 and 324 of IPC and Section 52-F of Prisons Act, 1894 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act added later on) at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran. His previous petition CRM-M-9078-2024 was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2024.

¶16

The petitioner is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences on the allegations that he had formed a membership of unlawful assembly with the co-accused, who were lodged in block No. 3 of the Central Jail, Tarn Taran and in prosecution of common

¶17

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-12856-2025

¶19

¶20

object of that unlawful assembly, he had caused injuries on the person of injured Keshav Kumar, and victims Mandeep Singh @ Tufan and Manmohan @ Monha who had succumbed to those injuries. The previous petition as filed by him was dismissed on the ground that no specific role might have been attributed to him, but his complicity in the subject crime by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149 of IPC could not be ruled out and further keeping in view the severity of the allegations as levelled against him.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the previous petition of the petitioner on 11.07.2024, the trial has still not progressed, as no witness has been examined. Even charges have not been framed. It is argued that extended period of incarceration is a reasonable ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. It is therefore, urged the petition so filed by him deserves to be allowed.

¶22

Status report has been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He has committed serious offenses. No new and substantive ground has been made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶23

Rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

¶24

The previous petition, as filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2024, after making a detailed discussion. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. There does not appear to be any substantive change in the circumstances. The present

¶25

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-12856-2025

¶27

¶28

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) . There is no substantive or specious change in the circumstances from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as filed by the petitioner. It is also well settled that there must be drastic change during the period between two applications for the successive application to be allowed, which is not there in this case. As such, I see no ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶29