Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

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.134 dated 25.07.2025 under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115, 118(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 238(a), 351(2), 61(2), 49, 54, 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station City Safidon, Jind.

#2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “I, Shiv Kumar, son of Shri Raghubir, resident of Village Muana, aged about 50 years, state that I am engaged in agriculture. I have two sons- my elder son Anuj and my younger son Vikas. Vikas was married and has a 7- month-old daughter. Near Khasra Chowk in Safidon, there is a hospital named Anuj Multispecialty Hospital. On 24.07.2025, my son Vikas went to that hospital in the morning. From there, Anil (resident of Goli, operator of Leelavati Hospital Safidon) took Vikas in his vehicle. My son Vikas was made to sit in the vehicle first, and Happy (resident of Sihma) was also with Anil. At around 9:30-10:00 PM, while traveling near the bus stand on Rampura Road, Safidon, one or two vehicles came and blocked their way. From those vehicles, about 7-8 persons armed with knives and weapons got down and attacked my son Vikas with knives. Anil and Happy also received minor injuries but not serious ones. There is strong suspicion that Anil (operator of Leelavati Hospital), in connivance with his associates, CRM-M-23812-2026 -2- got my son Vikas attacked. There had been prior disputes between Anil and my son regarding patients and hospital business, and Anil had earlier threatened my son. During the incident, 7-8 unknown persons came in vehicles and attacked my son. When I reached the spot, I arranged for a vehicle and took my son Vikas to Panipat for treatment. Before his death, my son told me that those attackers acted on the instructions of Anil and Happy and attacked him due to business rivalry related to hospital patients. Anil wanted to shut down my hospital so that more patients would come to his hospital. Therefore, Anil, Happy, and 7- 8 other unknown persons are responsible for my son's death, and strict legal action should be taken against them. On 24.07.2025, PSI Manoj along with ASI Subhash No. 963 and other staff reached the spot near Khasra Chowk, Safidon upon receiving information about a fight near Court Complex, Rampura Road. No injured person was found at the spot. The crime scene was secured, photographed, and inspected by the Scene of Crime team. Blood- stained earth samples and other evidence were collected and sealed as per procedure. During inquiry, it was found that Vikas, son of Shiv Kumar, resident of Muana, had died due to injuries sustained in the incident. His body was kept at Civil Hospital, Safidon. Anil (resident of Goli) was admitted in Leelavati Hospital, Safidon, and Happy (resident of Sihma) was admitted in a hospital at Panipat. Doctors were consulted and medical reports were obtained.”

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2025. 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 petitioner is merely alleged to have instigated the main accused, Pardeep alias Nanha, to commit the crime in question by exhorting him. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a lady aged about 26 years with no criminal antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 18.05.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody CRM-M-23812-2026 -3- certificate dated 21.07.2026 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 06.08.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 23.10.2025. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none 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 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.” Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the role ascribed to the petitioner, the period of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner being a lady CRM-M-23812-2026 -4- aged 26 years and having no antecedents. The rival contentions; including the active complicity of the petitioner qua the offence in question, 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 The petitioner is a lady aged about 26 years (As per memo of parties appended with the petition), hence, bail petition ought to be considered in view of proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS. It is pertinent to mention herein that the proviso to Section 480 BNSS, 2023, is pari materia with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court on

14.03.2024 in CRM-M-11503-2024 titled as ‘Ravinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab’ (dealing with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.), relevant thereof reads as under: “It would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2022(10) SCC 51’ , which held as under: 51. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm. In a case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. We have already taken note of the fact that many women who commit cognizable offenses are poor and illiterate. In many cases, upon being young they have children to take care of, and there are many instances when the children are to live in prisons. The statistics would show that more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers. This is an aspect that the courts are expected to take note of as it would not only involve the interest of the accused, but also the children who are not expected to get exposed to the prisons. There is a grave danger of their being inherited not only with poverty but with crime as well.

#58. Section 437 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to deal with all the offenses while considering an application for bail with the exception of an offense punishable either with life imprisonment or death triable CRM-M-23812-2026 -5- exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The first proviso facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, as discussed earlier. This being a welfare legislation, though introduced by way of a proviso, has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. The power under Section 439 of the Code is exercised against an order rejecting an application for bail and against an offence exclusively decided by the Court of Sessions. There cannot be a divided application of proviso to Section 437, while exercising the power under Section 439. While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. We do not wish to state that this proviso has to be considered favourably in all cases as the application depends upon the facts and circumstances contained therein. What is required is the consideration per se by the court of this proviso among other factors.’

6.2 As per custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 15 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

6.3 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 02.04.2026 by this Court in CRM-M-16091-2026. 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: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the “10. 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. CRM-M-23812-2026 -6- 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 misuse the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give her cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station and shall not change her cell-phone number without the prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the trial. CRM-M-23812-2026 -7-

#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.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

22.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No