Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in Murder Case on Second Petition; Cites Prolonged Custody, Hostile Witnesses and Slow Trial

Case Name: Suraj Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-51589-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the second petition for regular bail filed by the accused in a case involving offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The Court held that successive bail petitions are maintainable in law if there is a substantial change in circumstances. Prolonged incarceration of over two years, significant progress in trial, examination of most prosecution witnesses, and absence of material indicating likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence constituted sufficient change in circumstances warranting grant of bail.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No.62 dated 6 August 2023 registered at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, for offences including murder and attempt to murder. The allegations stemmed from a shooting incident arising out of an inter-caste marriage, in which the complainant’s wife was killed and the complainant himself sustained injuries.

The first bail petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on 30 August 2024. In the present second petition, the petitioner contended that he had been in continuous custody since 6 August 2023, had undergone incarceration for more than two years, and that the trial had substantially progressed. It was highlighted that out of 31 prosecution witnesses cited, 20 had already been examined and four had been given up. The petitioner further submitted that the prime prosecution witnesses, namely the complainant Ravi Kumar and his mother Anita Rani, had turned hostile, and therefore the trial was unlikely to culminate in conviction.

The State opposed the petition on the ground of seriousness of the allegations and apprehension that the petitioner might flee from justice. A custody certificate dated 12 January 2026 was placed on record showing that the petitioner had undergone incarceration for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days and was also involved in one other case.

The High Court examined the legal position governing second or successive bail petitions and relied upon its earlier decision in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana, reiterating that such petitions are maintainable provided there is a substantial and effective change in circumstances. The Court held that prolonged custody coupled with the pace of trial and lack of material suggesting misuse of liberty constituted a relevant change in circumstances.

The Court further held that mere involvement of the petitioner in another criminal case could not, by itself, be a ground to deny bail if the facts otherwise justified release. Relying on precedents including Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., the Court observed that further detention of the petitioner was not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to stringent conditions including non-tampering with evidence, regular appearance before the trial court, deposit of passport, and non-indulgence in any criminal activity.