CRM-M/30938/2026 of BUDH RAM ALIAS DOCTOR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 18 August 2026

1. Present 2nd 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.9 dated 27.01.2025 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Behal, District Bhiwani.
  

    


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the role attributed to the petitioner is merely stated to be that of sitting in the jeep which was being driven by co-accused namely Krishan Saharan and which is alleged to JATIN

CRM-M-30938-2026 -2- have run over the deceased-Sunil. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR complainant as also the alleged eye-witness, namely Sandeep, already stands examined and, thus, the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the substantial prosecution evidence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 14.07.2026, which is taken on record. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned 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 16.08.2026 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 30.01.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 17.04.2025. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 12 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the nature of the role ascribed to the petitioner herein, the FIR complainant as also the alleged eye-witness, namely Sandeep, having already been examined, and the petitioner having already suffered incarceration for 1 year, 6 months and 16 days; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the bail plea of the petitioner. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme JATIN

CRM-M-30938-2026 -3- 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 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 16.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 6 months and 16 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the JATIN

CRM-M-30938-2026 -4- petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.03.2026 by co-ordinate bench of this Court in CRM-M-683-2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in 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 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. JATIN

CRM-M-30938-2026 -5-

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.

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. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 


 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN