CRM-M/21983/2026 of MANPREET SINGH Vs UT OF CHANDIGARH on 16 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-

IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG

Manpreet Sin

Union Territo

Date of Date of Date of Date of Decis Decis Decis Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

attempt seeki registered for (Section 79 o

2. complainant, friends were boy repeated complainant

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-2 ngh Versus ory of Chandigarh sion sion sion sion: : : : July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, , , , 2026

ading: ading: ading: ading: July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Advocate a Ms. Anadhya, Advocate for the p Mr. Kanwarpal Singh, A.P.P. for the respondent – U.T., Chandi Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition filed under Sect ing regular bail, in case bearing r the offences punishable under S f the BNS added later on), at Poli The gravamen of allegations ag namely, Tabresh, alleged that o partying at Boom Box Club, Cha dly teased the girlfriend of h intervened, an altercation ensued

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner …Respondent EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL and petitioner. igarh. the complainant. tion 483 of the BNSS is the 2nd g FIR No.126 dated 26.12.2024, Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 ice Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. gainst the petitioner is that the on 26.12.2024, while he and his andigarh, an unknown stout-built his friend – Harry. When the

d. Later, at about 3:00 A.M., the r t d , e s t e e MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-2026

accused armed with a knife, repeatedly stabbed the complainant on the left side of his abdomen before fleeing from the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years. Learned counsel has submitted that the FIR-complainant has also sworn an affidavit dated 27.03.2026 in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a young man aged 23 years and there are chances of reformation at his end. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent – U.T., while raising submissions in tandem with reply by way of an affidavit dated 06.07.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, in the Court today, 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 26.12.2024, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 24.03.2025. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-2026

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 15.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 06 months and 20 days.

6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). 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 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, U.P. and another, U.P. and another, U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 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) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal)

477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of Haryana aryana aryana aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

6.3. Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.08.2025. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially, extended custody of the petitioner & pace of trial, which is reflectable from zinmi orders dated 19.08.2025, 03.09.2025, 26.09.2025, 15.10.2025, 06.11.2025, 24.11.2025, 17.12.2025, 09.01.2026, 29.01.2026, 27.02.2026, 19.03.2026 and 10.04.2026 appended with the petition MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-2026

in hand as Annexure P-3 (colly); this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA-S-2332

2332-2023

2023 titled as Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another 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 allowed allowed 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-21983

21983-2026

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.

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

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment