Anuj vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-54940-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

217 CRM-M-54940-2026

Anuj
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Date of Uploading : 04.11.2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG Hry.
*
SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)
1. The present third petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No.320 dated
12.08.2024 registered under Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132, 221 of BNS and
Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the petitioner had earlier
approached this Court for the same relief by filing two successive petitions,
which were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 03.11.2025 and
16.02.2026, respectively. The present petition is, thus, the third attempt by
the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail.
3. The allegations, in brief, are that on 12.08.2024, a police party
headed by Sub-Inspector Surjeet Singh, along with other police officials,
was proceeding towards Grain Market, Taraori, in connection with
investigation of another criminal case. When the police party reached near
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02 Sankada Pulia, Taraori, a secret informer met them and disclosed that three
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 2

young persons, namely, Anuj alias Banni (petitioner herein), Jaideep and
Sagar alias Ankit, were present on the Taraori - Anjanthali road and were
attempting to rob persons travelling on the said road by stopping their
vehicles by signaling them with a battery. The informer further disclosed
that the said persons might also be carrying illegal weapons. Acting upon
the said information, the police party laid a trap but the accused persons
started firing upon the police officials with an intention to kill them. One of
the bullets hit the conductor-side window of the government vehicle. In
retaliation, the police also fired gun shots upon the accused. Thereafter, all
the accused were apprehended at the spot. Upon their apprehension, the
injured person disclosed his identity as Anuj alias Banni (petitioner herein),
Jaideep and Sagar alias Ankit. On these set of allegations, the FIR in
question came to be registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on the basis
of an entirely concocted version put forth by the police officials. Learned
counsel has further iterated that petitioner had no intention to commit any
robbery and was not involved in any unlawful activity as alleged by the
investigating agency. It has been further contended that the entire
prosecution case rests solely on the version given by the police officials and
there is no independent witness to substantiate the allegations levelled
against the petitioner. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner
himself has sustained a firearm injury on his right leg during the alleged
occurrence. Furthermore, the injury sustained by the petitioner, when
considered in light of the absence of any injury to the police officials, raises
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 3

serious concern with regard to the manner in which the alleged occurrence
had taken place. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court upon
the fact that the two co-accused, namely, Sagar alias Ankit and Jaideep,
have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial
Court and, therefore, on the principle of parity the petitioner is also entitled
to the same relief. It has been further argued that the petitioner is in custody
since 12.08.2024, the investigation stands completed and the challan has
already been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. No
further recovery is to be effected form the petitioner and, therefore, his
continued incarceration serves no useful purpose. It has been further
contended that the petitioner is a young person, aged about 19 years at the
time of the occurrence, has roots in society and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses. On the strength of
these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for.
5. In oppugnation, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition
being non-maintainable as it is the third petition for grant of regular bail as
also on merits thereof. On merits, learned State counsel has iterated that the
petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail in view of the
serious and grave nature of the allegations against the petitioner. Learned
State counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not merely present
at the place of occurrence but allegedly attempted to obstruct and rob the
public travelling on the road. It has been further contended that when the
police party reached the spot the petitioner alongwith other co-accused had
attempted to flee from the spot and when the police tried to apprehend the
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 4

petitioner and his co-accused, they allegedly resorted to firing at the police
officials. It has been further contended that the petitioner was apprehended
at the spot after sustaining a firearm injury and his presence at the place of
occurrence is not in dispute. Furthermore, the prosecution case is supported
by the statements of the police officials who were members of the raiding
party and had witnessed the occurrence. In view of the nature and gravity of
the offence and the specific role of the petitioner, learned State counsel has
prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available records of the case.
7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by
this Court in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:
PHHC:054064 ; relevant whereof reads as under:-
9. The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail,
is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and
jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has
fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even
within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made
conspicuous, inter alia, in Article 21 of our Constitution that no person
shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law
which permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national
elements. Yet, liberty of an individual, the accused, must not transgress
the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified
everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the
rights of the collective of individuals viz. the State/Society at large, also
cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for
considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the
State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a
bail plea, the Court ought to take into account this core concept(s).
9.1 An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02 does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 5

otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking
regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law,
a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions,
especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that
Courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not
been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such
reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section
362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be
barring the filing of second/successive regular bail petition.
9.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case
(supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself,
forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time.
Similar is the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Ergo, it can be safely
inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is
essentially an interlocutory order and hence the postulation of res
judicata does not apply to its realm.
9.3 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the
factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail
petition(s).
9.4. The concordant legal position is that the essential pre-
requisite for consideration of second/successive regular petition is the
material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike
nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the
petitioner-accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earlier plea for
bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting
prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would
be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only
illustrative in nature and cannot by any means be said to be exhaustive.
9.5 No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated
to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in
determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated
substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional
or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying
that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence,
exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a
Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence.
10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following
AJAY KUMAR principles emerge:
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 6

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.
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.”

8. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
were available to the petitioner at the time when the earlier two petitions for
grant of regular bail were dismissed. In the petition in hand, the petitioner
has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in the circumstances
which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his third
petition for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a successive petition for
grant of bail, it is sine-qua-non to bring forth material change in
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
circumstances. Mere passage of time or filing of challan, in the facts of the

CRM-M-54940-2026 7

present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant of bail. The
first and second regular bail petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed
as withdrawn on 03.11.2025 and 16.02.2026 respectively and, indubitably,
approximately 8 months have passed since then. However, since the first
two regular bail petitions were dismissed as withdrawn and there was no
adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the
instant one on merits thereof as well.
9. The allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of
grave and serious offences involving organized crime, use of illegal firearms
and to create fear in the minds of general public. The incident reflects a
systematic and organized criminal activity affecting public order and safety.
As per the prosecution version, the petitioner, along with his co-accused,
was present on the Taraori - Anjanthali road and was allegedly attempted to
stop the passing vehicle(s) with the intent to commit robbery. However, on
seeing the police party, the petitioner alongwith co-accused allegedly
attempted to flee from the spot and resorted to firing gun-shots at the police
officials when they tried to apprehend them. During the course of exchange
of firing, one of the bullets struck the conductor-side window of the
government vehicle and the police official(s) narrowly escaped the gun
shots fired at them. The petitioner was stated to be apprehended from the
spot after sustaining a firearm injury on his right leg. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the role attributed to the petitioner has to be examined
in the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances.
The contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
merely on the basis of statements made by police officials also does not
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 8

persuade this Court to grant bail. The statements of police officials cannot
be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials. Their
credibility and the correctness of the prosecution version are matters to be
tested during the course of trial. The absence of independent public
witnesses may be a relevant circumstance for appreciation of evidence, but
it does not, at this stage, render the entire prosecution case highly
unbelievable. The petitioner was allegedly one of the three persons present
at the spot, who attempted to flee upon seeing the police party and fired at
the police officials; and was apprehended during the same occurrence. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the alleged association of the petitioner
with the other two accused and the circumstances surrounding the incident,
are matters which require examination during the course of trial. At this
stage, the Court is only required to examine whether prima facie material
exists to connect the petitioner with the offence, which, in the considered
view of this Court, does exist. The plea of parity with co-accused who have
been granted bail is also untenable. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the bail cannot be granted in a mechanical manner merely on the basis of
parity particularly when the role attributed to the petitioner is distinct and
graver. Furthermore, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature and he is required to substantiate his defence by leading cogent
evidence.
10. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the organized
manner in which it was committed and the specific role attributed to the
petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54940-2026 9

deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in
hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
11. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency
as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without
being influenced with this order.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE

November 04, 2026
Ajay

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

AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.05 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document