Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birbal vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-22893-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
CRM-M-22893-2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
Date of uploading : 30.04.2026
Birbal .............Petitioner
Versus
State Of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Suraj Mandhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
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.114 dated 21.03.2025 under
Sections 109(1), 3(5), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-B)(c),
25(1B)(C), 25(8), 27(2) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Pundri
District Kaithal.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
“To the SHO, It is stated that Urmila, wife of Sh. Vinod Kumar is a
resident of village Matrawa Khedi Pundri and she is running Mannat Hair
Salon and Beauty Parlour in Brahmand Colony, Pundri with her husband
Vinod and brother-in-law Manjeet for about 8/9 years and lives there.
About 4/5 years ago, her husband Vinod’s uncle’s son Birbal, who is her
brother-in-law, used to work in their salon. Birbal was caught many times
by the police for criminal activities and they had removed Birbal from
their shop. After that, Birbal started having a grudge against them and
even fought with them many times. Keeping this grudge in mind, today at
about 01.30 in the afternoon Birbal came to their salon and came upstairs
to her beauty parlor and started beating her. On hearing the noise her
JATIN brother-in-law Manjit also came upstairs. During this, Birbal took out the
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22893-2026 -2-pistol hidden in his pants and shot her with intention to kill her. The bullet
hit near her neck. Her brother-in-law Manjit tried to apprehend Birbal but
Birbal showed the pistol to her brother-in-law and threatened to kill her
and her family and ran away from there with the pistol. Her brother-in-
law told her that Eirbal was accompanied by another boy, who was
standing with a motorcycle. Birbal ran away with that boy on the
motorcycle. After that, her family admitted her to the government hospital,
Pundri. Birbal has tried to kill her by making a lethal attack on her. Legal
action should be taken against him.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 26.03.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question, as there
is a property-related dispute between the petitioner and the victim side.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the injured, Urmila, and
another key witness, namely Manjit, already stand examined. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration
for more than 10 months. 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
29.04.2026 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 26.03.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 20.06.2025.
Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 2 has 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
JATIN
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22893-2026 -3-
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 29.04.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 10 months and 24 days & is shown to be involved in other cases. As
per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in
more cases. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be
JATIN
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22893-2026 -4-
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 the 2nd attempt by the
petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.01.2026. 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
JATIN
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22893-2026 -5-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.
JATIN
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22893-2026 -6-
8. Liberty is reserved in favour of the FIR-complainant/victim to
seek recall of this order on showing sufficient cause. The concerned SHO
is obligated to move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the
regular bail granted to the petitioner in case the petitioner is found to be
involved in any FIR after the grant of bail to the petitioner vide the
present order.
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 of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
30.04.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN
2026.04.30 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link
