Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shaddeen vs State Of Punjab on 20 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision : 20.05.2026
Date of uploading : 20.05.2026
Shahdeen .............PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab .......RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Dr. Khushbir Kaur Waraich, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition is the third attempt, which 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.04 dated
04.01.2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of BNS and Section 238 of BNS
2023 (added later on), registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib,
District Tarn Taran.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
“Statement of Masoom Ali, son of Nawab Din, son of Chirag Din, resident of
Bhinder Kala, police station Khalchia, district Amritsar, age 37 years, mobile
number 98784-59225, stated that I am a resident of the above address and work
as a laborer. We are 06 brothers and 03 sisters and all of us are simple people
and along with our family we live in different places by making camps and earn
NAVEEN NAGPAL our living by keeping buffaloes and selling buffalo milk. Our eldest brother
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -2-Sadiq, who was about 42 years old, along with his family, lives in a camp near
village Miani, police station Goindwal Sahib and along with them other people
also live there. All of them earn their living by selling buffalo milk. On the middle
of the night of 03.01.2025, Sadiq and his wife started arguing and quarreling
over something. As the quarrel escalated, Sadiq’s wife Meena called her brother
other Ammi and Shahdeen both sons of Kalu r/o Miyani and told them that my
husband is quarreling with me and beating me. You reach the place. After a
while, Ammi and Shahdeen came to the place. As soon as they arrived, they
started beating him. My brother’s daughter Neefa called me and told me that my
father is being beaten up by my maternal uncles. At that time, I had come toGoindwal Sahib for some personal work and after a while I reached the place
and saw that Ammi s/o Kalu was holding a brick in his right hand. He was
throwing my brother Sadiq on the ground and hitting him with the brick on his
cheek. Shahdeen, who had a scar in his hand, was holding my brother’s leg. He
was beating him and Sadiq’s wife was also holding him by the legs and seeing me
coming, all the accused along with their weapons along with 4/5 other unknown
persons all ran away from the spot. When I went to my brother, and saw that he
has died. The night was very dark and cold and foggy, so I did not come to the
police station to inform you.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 13.05.2025. 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 case would not invoke
culpability under Section 103 of BNS (erstwhile Section 302 IPC) but
only under Section 105 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC).
Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for more than one year. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the prime prosecution witnesses are not coming forward to
have their testimonies recorded despite bailable warrants having been
issued against them, which is clear from the perusal of orders dated
19.09.2025, 26.09.2025, and 16.10.2025 passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner
is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -3-
arguing that the allegations raised are direct and 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
19.05.2026 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 13.05.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 08.11.2025
Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only one partly has
been examined till date. The trial is procrastinating and folly thereof
cannot be attributed upon the petitioner. 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 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.”
6.1 The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to
debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of
trial. Though learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that the
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -4-
petitioners’ side is exerting pressure, but no material, much less tangible
evidence, has been brought forth in this regard. 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.
6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt on behalf of
the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no. CRM-M-
56944-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-4)
whereas the second one bearing CRM-M-18631-2026 was dismissed as
withdrawn on 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-5). However, keeping in view the
entirety of facts and circumstance of the case in hand especially keeping
in view the extended custody and pace of 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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -5-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.”
6.3. Further, as per custody certificate dated 19.05.2026 filed by
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for
a period of 01 year, 4 days and is shown to be involved in other FIR/case.
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.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -6-
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 cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. However, the complainant side, in case any threat is perceived,
shall be at liberty to apply for a security before the concerned SSP. In
case, any such plea is raised, the concerned SSP shall deal with the said
plea in a ratiocinated manner within a period of one week from the receipt
of such plea.
10. Ordered accordingly.
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-27471-2026 (O & M) -7-
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
20.05.2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.05.20 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
HIgh Court Chandigarh
