IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17^th April, 2026 Amit ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant one is the forth petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 768 dated 04.11.2021 registered under Sections 302, 201, 404, 34 of IPC at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. One of the previous petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Gurnam Singh alleging that on the night of 03.11.2021, while going home, he had seen his brother Sanjeev Kumar @ Sandeep to be present along with the present petitioner, co-accused Mohan, Deepak and Vinod while consuming liquor by sitting near a wine shop. He had asked his brother to come home, but his companions had told that he would come back after some time. The dead body of his brother was found lying in their fields in the next morning. By alleging that the petitioner and the co-accused had hand in the murder of his brother, he prayed for taking action. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner and co-accused were arrested on 05.11.2021. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime.

Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the last previous petition as filed by him has been dismissed on 20.05.2025. A period of about 11 months has lapsed thereafter. However, the trial has not progressed any further. Only 07 out of 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is in custody for a period of about 04 years, 05 months and 12 days. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration is militating against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Similarly situated co-accused Deepak has been extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the instant petition being a successive petition is not maintainable. There is no substantive or drastic change in the circumstances. The material witnesses have been examined and have supported the prosecution version. The trial may be expedited further. Prolonged incarceration in such like cases cannot be considered to be a reason for extending benefit of bail to him. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have caused homicidal death of the victim on the night of 03.11.2021. Trial will take further time to conclude as only 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is in custody for a period of about 04 years, 05 months and 12 days. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of th