Petitioner sought regular bail under BNSS Sec. 483 in a murder and dacoity case. Court rejected bail citing serious nature of accusation (murder under IPC 302), genuine apprehension of tampering evidence, and lack of compelling grounds despite prolonged custody.
The petition for regular bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026
Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Divyangana Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09 | 10.02.2023 | Division No.3, Distr | ict 302 and 34 of IPC (397, |
| Police | 201, 379-B, 396 and | ||
| Commissionerate | 411 of IPC added later | ||
| Jalandhar | on( (411 of IPC deleted later on) |
MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026
-2-
MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026
-3-
disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of the victim and in commission of offence of dacoity. Investigation now stands completed.
MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh
-4-
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026
MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh
CRM-M No.17478 of 2026
-5-
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. 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.
06.07.2026 manju
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
MANJU 2026.07.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with murder and dacoity given his custody duration and lack of clean antecedents.
Whether the court can rely on co-accused disclosure statements for bail adjudication when the petitioner was not named in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Kumar
State of Punjab
Manisha Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
