CRM-M/39979/2026 of DEVENDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026

1. Present 4th 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. 670 dated 05.12.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “The contents of the information are as follows: Statement of Shanky Kashyap S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, resident of 648/9, Sanoli Road, new Sabji Mandi near Bhim Goda Mandir, Panipat, Police Station Qila, District Panipat, aged 34 years, Mobile No. 9996022712. The complainant stated that I am residing at the above-mentioned address and I a taxi driver. On 04.12.2023 at about 7:30 PM, three boys hired my vehicle No. HR06-PB-

2947,Swift Dzire, from Railway Station Panipat for Chandigarh baddi. They paid Rs. 2,000/- in cash and the remaining Rs.4,000/- were to be paid after reaching the destination. While travelling from Panipat and after crossing Chandimandir Toll Plaza, at about 11:00 PM in the night, two more boys boarded the vehicle. Thereafter, on Pinjore-Nalagarh Road near village Kheda Basola village, those five boys took me along with the vehicle into the jungle. There, they made me get down from the vehicle, assaulted me and showed me a pistol. They snatched my mobile phone make VIVO containing SIM Nos. 9812439407 and 9817329881 and also snatches my purse which containing about Rs. 4,000/-. Thereafter, all of them pushed me down from a hill. All the boys fled away after taking away my vehicle, purse and mobile phone. Out of them, three boys were having beard. One boy was wearing an earring and a cap on his head, and one boy had a light beard. If all this boys are produced before me, I can identify them. Legal action be taken against them. Statement read over and explained to the complainant, who admitted it to be correct and signed/thumb marked the same as Shanky Kashyap.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 1.8.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the prime prosecution witness namely PW-Shanky Kashyap (FIR-complainant /victim) has turned hostile on 15.05.2026 and hence, trial is not likely to culminate into conviction. He has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 10 months. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner was earlier afforded the concession of interim regular bail and he has surrendered back within stipulated time, which likely to show that there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. 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 the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 25.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

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

6. The petitioner was arrested on 1.8.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.11.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only one been examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that the sole examined witness namely PW-Shanky Kashyap (FIR-complainant/victim) has turned hostile. The rival contention; including the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of the hostile witness; shall be gone into 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 25.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 10 months and 26 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is effectively the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The petitioner was earlier afforded the grant of interim bail on medical grounds and also on demise of his father but he has availed the same on the condition as stipulated by the Court and surrendered back in time. Keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner and pace of trial, prime prosecution witness Shanky Kashyap having turned hostile, 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.

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 27.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No