Harmanjeet Singh Alias Kali Vs State of Punjab

The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.123, dated 22.06.2023, registered under Sections 302, 379, 392, 411 and 34 IPC, at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka. His first petition bearing CRM-M-8069-2024 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2024 whereas the second petition bearing CRM-M31741-2024 had been dismissed by passing a detailed order vide order dated 21.04.2025.

¶15

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 03

¶16

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-2550-2026 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

years. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only 12 out of 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. Moreso, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating material against him on record. His further incarceration would not serve any useful propose. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the instant one being the successive petition is not even maintainable. It is further argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

¶21

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

¶22

So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

¶23

The first petition of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2024 whereas the second petition was dismissed on 21.04.2025.

¶24

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-2550-2026 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

The trial has not progressed much thereafter since only 12 prosecution witnesses out of 27 have been examined so far. Therefore, it is obvious that the chances of conclusion of the trial in the near future are bleak. He is in custody for a period of about 03 years. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is well settled proposition of law that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused, he becomes entitled to be released on bail. Since the trial of this case, apparently and evidently is shown to have been delayed, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any more. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well

¶28

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-2550-2026 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

as surety bonds to the extent of two sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

¶33

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

¶34

(MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harmanjeet Singh Alias Kali v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmanjeet Singh Alias Kali v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj @ Mauja Vs State of Haryana

Rajender Singh @ Rahul Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana

Rajan Sharma Alias Rajan Alias Raja Vs State of Punjab

Subheg Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana