Sanmit Khosla vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
*

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026
Date of decision : 12.11.2026
Date of uploading : 12.11.2026

Sanmit Khosla ………….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. J.S. Johal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the complainant
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
th
1. Present 5 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.01 dated 4.1.2024 under
Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
(Challan presented under Sections 302, 307, 212, 120-B, 34 of the IPC
and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act whereas charges were framed under
Sections 302, 307, 212, 201, 120-B, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of Arms
Act), registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Sandeep Kumar
Sarpanch @ Cheena.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
was arrested on 7.1.2024 and is in continuous custody since then.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -2-

Learned counsel has urged that the challan (upon culmination of
investigation) already stands filed wherein total 30 prosecution witnesses
have been cited but only 2 have been fully examined and 01 has been
partly examined till date. Learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner is not attributed the fire shot/fatal injury in question but the
same is attributed to one Anup Kumar @ Vicky. Learned counsel has
drawn the attention of this Court to the role described in the prosecution
stand in its reply dated 20.10.2026, which reads thus:
‘ ROLE OF THE PETITIONER :
14. That it is submitted that the petitioner was driving the car in which
main accused Anoop Kumar @ Vicky and his associates ran away from
the spot after committing murder of Sarpanch Sandeep Kumar @ Cheena.
The petitioner was nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure
statement of accused Rohit Kumar. There are serious allegations against
the petitioner, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.’

Learned counsel has further urged that co-accused, namely Gurpreet
Singh @ Gopi Shooter has been afforded the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 8.7.2026 passed in CRM-M No.28231 of 2026
(Copy of which is appended as Annexure P-2 with the present petition),
whereas, another co-accused, namely Mandeep Singh @ Meepa has been
afforded the concession of regular bail vide order dated 8.7.2026 passed
in CRM-M No.26666 of 2026 (Copy of which is appended as Annexure
P-3 with the present petition) and the same have not been assailed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court till date. Learned counsel has further urged
that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 2 years
and 9 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -3-

4. Learned State counsel had filed status report dated 20.10.2026,
which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said
status report, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are direct and serious
in nature. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificate dated 10.11.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.
4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed
the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by iterating that the petitioner is
arraigned as a conspirator and has helped the assailant(s) in committing
the murder in question. Learned counsel has urged that in case, the
petitioner is released on bail, there is all the likelihood that he may
intimidate/influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, dismissal of the
petition in hand is entreated for.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 7.1.2024, whereinafter,
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 2.4.2024.
Total 30 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 2 have been fully
examined and 01 has been partly examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable
that conclusion of the trial will take long. 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:-
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -4-

“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.”

6.1 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in
hand; especially the nature of role ascribed to the petitioner, the evidence
available against the petitioner, the FIR-complainant (Amrik Singh)
having been examined as a prosecution witness, the petitioner already
having suffered incarceration for more than 2 years and 9 months, trial
not likely to culminate in near future and somewhat similarly placed co-
accused, namely Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Shooter and Mandeep Singh @
Meepa having been afforded the concession of regular bail, which have
not been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court till date; this Court is
inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
6.2 The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues,
which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon 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
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -5-

evidence.
6.3 As per custody certificate dated 10.11.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 2 years, 9 months and 30 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 other FIR(s) and also involved in
some jail offences. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required
to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by
him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to
decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in
question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in
question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of
the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998
(2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M
No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on
29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal)
191.
6.4 Indubitably, the present petition is the 5th attempt by the
petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.9.2025. Keeping in view the
entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the extended
incarceration of the petitioner, glacial pace of trial and complete
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -6-

testimony of FIR-complainant (Amrik Singh) having been recorded after
the withdrawal of the last petition; 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:
“ 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the 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.
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
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.38648 of 2026 -7-

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 mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

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 for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.




(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
ASHWANI KUMAR
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2026.11.12 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document