CRM-M/48113/2026 of SUBHASH @ PEHELWAN @ SHUBI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-48113-2026

SUBHASH @ PEHELWAN @ SHUBI ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent

Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Date of Uploading: 03.09.2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:- Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.437 dated 22.07.2024, registered under Section 111(2)(b) of the BNS, 2023, Section 25(6) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 (Sections 61(2), 336(2), 337, 199 of the BNS, 2023, Section 13 and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 added while presentation of challan/ final report), at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands filed and total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and none has been examined till date as the trial is yet to begin also the charges could not be framed for lack of requisite sanction against co-accused, namely, Madan Lal. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to interfere with the prosecution evidence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

3. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in other FIR(s) and, hence, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 01.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2024, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 21.10.2024. Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited and none has been examined till date, it is the conceded case before this Court that trial proceedings have not effectively taken place for lack of requisite sanction against co-accused – Madan Lal. Keeping in view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the petitioner having suffered incarceration for more than 02 years one month and 3 days, challan having been presented after culmination of investigation; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant bail plea.

The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially 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.

5.1. 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 one month and 03 days and petitioner is not shown to be involved in other FIR(s)/cases.

5.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea was dismissed on merits thereof on 25.08.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual matrix of the case in hand; especially, factum of the petitioner having suffered extended incarceration & pace of trial; this Court is inclined to affirmatively 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 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.

6. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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 cellphone 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.

7. 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.

8. Ordered accordingly.

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

10. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 02.09.2026 Kamal Gandhi

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No