Jagmeet Singh @ Jaggi v. State of Punjab

Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) ***

#1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking concession of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 181 dated 01.09.2017, registered under Sections 307, 224, 225, 353, 186, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC and 25 of Arms, Act, 1959. His previous petition, bearing number CRM-M-13779-2025, was dismissed by this Court on 19.05.2025. The operative part of the order dated 19.05.2025 reads as under : “6. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and by hatching a conspiracy with them is alleged to have entered inside a bus in which the co-accused Shubam was being taken in police custody towards Amritsar Courts and is alleged to have not only got him released from custody of the police officials but is also alleged to have caused CRM-M-11399-2026 (O&M) -2- a firearm injury to one of the police officials namely, ASI Sukhjinder Singh. The said injury which was sustained by him on his leg was obviously dangerous to life. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has been involved in many other cases most of which are of serious nature. As such, apprehension expressed by the respondent that he may commit similar offences or may abscond cannot be stated to be unfounded at this stage. Ten Out of fifteen prosecution witnesses stand examined and trial is being conducted at proper pace. Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, the nature of the allegations levelled against him and the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.”

#2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period over two years and two months. The conductor and the driver of the bus, in which the alleged incident had allegedly taken place, have since been examined and have not identified the petitioner as one of the persons who had committed the subject offences. These grounds amount to substantial change in circumstances entitling the petitioner to seek bail. Even otherwise, each day spent by him in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. CRM-M-11399-2026 (O&M) -3-

#3. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent- State that the previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order by this Court by taking into consideration the contentions raised by both sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are not material and will not have any impact on the prosecution version. The petitioner is accused of committing heinous crime. He is a habitual offender having multiple criminal cases registered against him. Trial is going on at a proper pace. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

#5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order. It is well settled proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292, wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme CRM-M-11399-2026 (O&M) -4- Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration.

#6. After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. The non-identification of the petitioner by the driver and conductor, at this stage, does not materially dilute the prosecution case or constitute a ground warranting a different view. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He is shown to be involved in multiple criminal cases. The trial is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially in view of the fact that no drastic or material change in the circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed.

#7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

07.07.2026 Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No