The High Court reaffirmed that second/successive bail petitions are maintainable if a substantial, effective, and consequential change in circumstances is demonstrated—mere lapse of time and the absence of trial progress after years of incarceration can form such a basis. The judgment applies bindingly within Punjab & Haryana, clarifying the prevailing standard under the BNSS and aligning with precedent.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/10838/2025 of BALJEET SINGH ALIAS BALLU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010282472025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms law in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana & Ors |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bail under Section 483 BNSS) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Second and successive bail petitions are legally maintainable and cannot be rejected solely for being repetitive; they must, however, be accompanied by a substantial change in circumstances. Extended incarceration without trial progress and co-accused acquittal constitute such changes. The presence of other criminal cases alone cannot deny bail if circumstances of the present FIR warrant relief. The order sets out that cogent, lucid reasons must be recorded while granting bail in such petitions, and outlines relevant conditions to balance accused’s liberty and the interests of justice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner (Baljit Singh @ Ballu) was named in FIR No.113/2018 for murder and associated offences. He was in custody since 07.09.2022, co-accused had been acquitted, trial had not progressed (no prosecution evidence recorded out of 37 witnesses), and petitioner had suffered over 3 years’ incarceration. Prior bail applications were rejected, including one on merits. State opposed bail citing gravity of offence and petitioner’s other FIRs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially when interpreting similar BNSS provisions |
| Follows | Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana & Another (2023); Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that second and successive regular bail petitions under Section 483 BNSS are legally maintainable if there is a “substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.”
- Detailed what constitutes “substantial change”—here, prolonged pretrial detention without trial progress and co-accused acquittal.
- Existence of other FIRs against the accused cannot, by itself, bar bail if circumstances of the current case warrant it.
- Obliges courts to record cogent and lucid reasons for granting bail in successive applications.
- Lawyers should document trial delays and changed circumstances beyond those at the time of previous bail denials.
- The order does not constitute a general precedent for allowing bail solely due to passage of time, but underscores need for contextual, fact-driven analysis.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by acknowledging the petitioner’s extended incarceration (over 3 years) and the lack of trial progress (no prosecution witness examined out of 37 cited).
- Cited the precedent in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana & Another (2023), reiterating the maintainability of successive bail applications under BNSS, subject to “substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.”
- Emphasized that what amounts to a “substantial change” is to be determined by courts reviewing the unique facts of each case.
- Noted the petitioner was similarly situated to co-accused acquitted at trial, and emphasized that further pretrial detention was not justified given the stagnation of trial proceedings.
- Held that pendency of other FIRs does not ipso facto warrant denial of bail when a case for relief is otherwise made out in the relevant FIR.
- The Court reasoned that further detention, in absence of progress, would not serve the interests of justice and would violate principles of fairness.
- Set out conditions to ensure accused’s cooperation with trial and to prevent delay, tampering, or repeat offending.
- Explicitly refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the underlying charges to avoid prejudicing the pending trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed prolonged custody since 07.09.2022, with no witness examined at trial.
- Case is based on circumstantial evidence alone; petitioner is on same footing as co-accused who have already been acquitted.
- No tangible evidence connecting him to offence; no recoveries pending from him.
- Argued extended incarceration, and that the trial will take long, thus regular bail is warranted.
Respondent/State
- Strongly opposed grant of bail, citing seriousness of allegations.
- Pointed out the petitioner was involved in other FIRs.
- Emphasized gravity of offence and the need to prevent abuse of bail provisions, referring to earlier abscondence.
- Stated that the allegations warranted continued detention.
Factual Background
FIR No.113 dated 02.10.2018 was registered under Sections 302, 201, 34, 397, and 411 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur, following the discovery of a dead body (Paramjit Singh, truck driver) near Ghaggar Bridge. The deceased’s associate, Balwant Singh @ Banta, implicated the petitioner and others after narrating that the petitioner’s group had last interacted with the victim while posing as brokers for a trucking consignment. The petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2022, after evading arrest. Co-accused were acquitted in November 2022. The trial had not progressed, with no prosecution witnesses examined in over three years of petitioner’s custody.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (analogous to Section 439 CrPC)—addressed for grant of regular bail.
- The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, emphasizing successive bail petitions are maintainable when there is a material change in the accused’s circumstances.
- Reiterated principles from precedents: maintainability regardless of whether previous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, not pressed, or on merits.
- Held that delay in trial and extended incarceration without substantial progress amount to a change in circumstance justifying reconsideration.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Reiterated and clarified the standard requiring cogent and lucid reasons for granting bail on successive applications.
- Directed specific and detailed bail conditions to ensure participation in trial and safeguard prosecution’s interests.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established law from Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana (2023) and related Supreme Court guidance.