CRM-M/17602/2026 of INDERJEET @ INDERJIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

1. Present 3rd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.85 dated 24.02.2024 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 365, 458 of IPC (later on added Sections 120-B, 201, 324, 325, 326, 459 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act), registered at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

2. The FIR in question pertains to the murder of one Sombir.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 08.03.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime role attributed to the petitioner is that of hatching the conspiracy along with co-accused. JATIN

Learned counsel has further submitted that, upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of affidavit dated 10.07.2026, which is taken on record. A perusal of the said reply, inter alia, reflects as under:- “28.The role of present petitioner:- The present petitioner is named in FIR. Daughter of his neighbor Rajender @ Kuliya/accused namely Nisha performed marriage with boy of their village namely Ombir son of Gopi Ram after running away from house on 05.02.2024.The present petitioner and accused Rajender @ Kuliya thought about taking revenge from Ombir and his family because they felt ashamed and instigated accused persons namely Sunny, Sandeep, Shankar @ Pyari, Pardeep @ Sonu (nephew/bhanja of Rajender @ Kuliya). On 23.02.2024, the present petitioner, accused persons Rajender @ Kuliya, Sunny, Sandeep, Shankar @ Pyari, Pardeep @ Sonu hatched conspiracy to commit murder of Ombir and his family members for taking revenge.They got information that Ombir son of Gopiram took daughter of accused Rajender @ Kuliya namely Nisha at his home in village Bapora.Then they gathered at house of accused Rajender @ Kuliya and thought that this is best opportunity to commit murder of Ombir and his family members.As per plan at night time accused Sunny took swords, bugti, knife from his home for committing murder of Ombir and his family members. Accused Sunny took bugti, accused Sandeep took sword, accused Shankar @ Pyari took sword, accused Pardeep @ Sonu took knife and went to home of Ombir son of Gopiram.The present petitioner went to his home. Then accused Sandeep took advice from the present petitioner regarding plan via telephonic call and kept asking about plan from him. Accused Sandeep disclosed whole things to present petitioner on phone after committing murder of Sombir son of Gopiram and causing injuries to Gopiram.The present petitioner got recovered mobile phone alongwith sim which he used in this crime.” Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned JATIN

State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2024 and is in continuous custody since then. Challan, upon culmination of the investigation, stands presented on 22.05.2024. Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited but 8 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to JATIN

debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 05 months and 23 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withrawn on 12.11.2025 of this Court in CRM-M-54632-2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and the glacial pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332- 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. As an epilogue 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.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- 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 JATIN

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 plea(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 circumstances 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 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 cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. JATIN

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN