Robin vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-49808-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

225 CRM-M-49808-2026
Robin ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ....Respondent
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
Date of Uploading : 12.11.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. GPS Ghuman, Advocate with
Mr. Shivraj Dhav Majra, Mr. Karan Walia,
Mr. Karan Walia and Mr. Kamal Bajwa, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG Punjab.
*
SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)
1. The present second petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No.00127 dated
07.07.2023 registered under Sections 302, 394, 201 of IPC at Police Station
Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana, Punjab.
2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the record, is that
complainant, Rinku Kumar, informed the police that his paternal uncle
Chaman Lal, aged about 80 years, was residing at New Janakpuri, Salem
Tabri, Ludhiana, along with his wife, namely, Surinder Kaur, aged about 74
years and his mother, namely, Surjit Kaur, aged about 95 years. All the three
deceased were residing in the same house, whereas their four children were
settled abroad. On 07.07.2023, the complainant came to know that the dead
bodies of all three persons were lying inside their house. On reaching the
spot, he found the dead body of Chaman Lal lying on the floor of a room,
whereas the dead bodies of Surinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur were lying on the
bed. All the three bodies were smeared with blood and bore injuries on their
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
heads. The complainant, had initially suspected that some unknown persons
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 2

had committed their murder with the intention of committing robbery.
Accordingly, FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections
302 and 34 IPC. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 08.07.2023,
the complainant made a supplementary statement to the effect that he and
his family members had searched the house of deceased Chaman Lal and
noticed that certain articles, including a grey-coloured briefcase, a mobile
phone, a Panasonic camera and 07 camera cassettes, were missing. He
further stated that during the course of inquiry conducted by him, suspicion
was raised against one Robin alias Munna (petitioner herein), who was
stated to have entered the house of the deceased persons with the intention
of committing theft and had thereafter murdered all the three occupants. On
the basis of the said statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused
in the present case and was arrested on 08.07.2023. During the course of
investigation, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement stating that on
06.07.2023, at about 5:30 AM, he had scaled the boundary wall of the house
of Chaman Lal while carrying an iron hammer and had committed the
murders of Chaman Lal, Surinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur. Pursuant to the said
disclosure statement, recovery of article(s) was effected and taken into
police possession.
3. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail
before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.09.2025.
The relevant part of said order reads as under:-
“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present
petition at this stage after hearing at length.
3. Dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
of regular bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 01.09.2026.

CRM-M-49808-2026 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2023 and has already undergone
substantial period of incarceration. Learned counsel has further iterated that
the trial is proceeding at snail’s pace and there is no likelihood of its
conclusion in the near future. According to learned counsel, out of the total
26 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, only a few witnesses have been
examined so far. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of
the Court to the zimni order(s) placed on record as Annexure P-4 (colly) to
show that the prosecution witnesses have not been appearing regularly
before the trial Court which has resulted in repeated adjournments. Learned
counsel has, thus, contended that petitioner should not be kept behind the
bars for an indefinite period as it would serve no useful purpose. It has been
further contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and there is
no material to suggest that he is likely to abscond, influence the prosecution
witness(s) or tamper with the evidence in any manner. Furthermore, the
investigation is complete and the recoveries, if any, have already been
effected and hence the petitioner is no longer required for any custodial
interrogation. Learned counsel has emphasized that initially the FIR was
registered against unknown persons and the subsequent nomination of the
petitioner on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant
does not, by itself, establish his involvement. According to learned counsel,
the alleged disclosure statement of the petitioner cannot be treated as proof
of the entire prosecution story and the evidentiary value of the recoveries
would be a matter to be considered during the course of trial. Learned
counsel has asserted that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged
crime and his implication in the instant case is a clear abuse of process of
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
law. Furthermore, the allegations are concocted, lacking any apparent

CRM-M-49808-2026 4

motive or rationale for the petitioner to have committed such an offence. 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 second 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 allegations. While referring to affidavit dated
10.11.2026 of Kikar Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North),
Ludhiana, learned State counsel has iterated that the present case relates to
the brutal murder of three elderly persons, including two elderly women,
inside their residential house. It has been further contended that the
petitioner is not being implicated merely on the basis of suspicion as his
name has surfaced during the course of investigation and his disclosure
statement(s) led to the recovery of articles/weapon allegedly taken away
from the house of the deceased persons, including the mobile phone and the
SIM card. The relevant of the said affidavit reads thus:
“That accordingly the petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2023 and he got
recovered the blood stained Hammer used by him in the crime, his shorts
and "Parna" which were blood stained, one knife, briefcase, camera,
charger, battery, 7 negative reels and mobile phones.
8. That the above noted blood stained clothes and other items including
Hammer were sent to the CFSL and later on report was received in which
it was mentioned as under:-
"CONCLUSION:
From the above results, it is concluded that:
1. The DNA profile of a male individual recovered from the blood stains
present on Shorts (Exhibit 6A) and Parna (Exhibit 6B) of Mr.Robin
@Munna is consistant with the DNA Profile recovered from the
bloodstains present on pajama of deceased Mr.Chaman Lal (Exhibit 7A).

AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 5

2. The DNA profile of female individual recovered Salwat from the blood
stains present (Exhibit 3D) and Cloth Piece (Exhibit 4) and is consistent
with the DNA profile recovered from the bloodstains present on Kameej
(Exhibit 8A) of deceased Mrs.Surinder Kaur. on
3. The DNA profiles recovered from the bloodstains present on Pajama
(Exhibit 7A) of deceased Mr.- Chaman Lal and Kameej (Exhibit 8A) of
deceased Mrs.Surinder Kaur are accounted being present in the mixed
DNA profile recovered from the bloodstains present on Hammer (Exhibit
5)".
That thus the petitioner is accused of committing gruesome
murders of three persons i.e. his neighbours after scaling over the wall of
his house and committing robbery from their house as mentioned above.
Therefore considering the gravity of offence and nature of allegations, the
petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.
10. That the role of the petitioner, evidence against the petitioner, custody
details and criminal antecedents of the petitioner as well as status of trial
are given below:-
A.ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:-
The petitioner committed gruesome murders of three persons i.e. his
neighbours after scaling over the wall of his house and committed
robbery from their house as mentioned above.
B. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:-
(i) In the FIR there are direct and specific, allegations against the
petitioner.
(ii) Post-Mortem Reports of the said three deceased.
(iii) FSL Report.
(iv) Supplementary Statement of the complainant naming the petitioner
to have committed the murders and robbery.
(v) Statements of independent witnesses-Jodha Singh and Mukesh
Sehgal.
(vi) Recovery of blood stained Hammer used by the petitioner in the
crime, his shorts and "Parna" which were blood stained, one knife,
briefcase, camera, charger, battery, negative reels and mobile phones,
got affected by the petitioner.”

Learned State counsel submits that the manner in which the
crime is alleged to have been committed, the number of deceased persons
and the circumstances surrounding the recoveries are important factors
which cannot be ignored while considering the prayer of the petitioner for
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 6

grant of bail. In view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific
role of the petitioner and the likelihood of influencing witnesses, 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
does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or
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.
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 7

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
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
AJAY KUMAR
or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 8

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 first petitioner for
regular bail was dismissed. Thereafter, in the present petition, the petitioner
has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in circumstances which
would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition
for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a second petition for bail, it is
sine-qua-non to bring forth material change in circumstances. This fact
assumes more importance when no undue delay in trial has been brought
forth. Mere prolonged custody and the alleged slow progress of the trial, in
the facts of the present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant
of bail. The first regular bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn on 22.09.2025 and, indubitably, approximately 01 year has
passed since then. However, since the first regular bail petition was
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
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
well.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49808-2026 9

9. The allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of
grave and serious offence(s). Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
examine the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner.
As per the prosecution, the petitioner is alleged to have entered the house of
three elderly persons during the early hours of the morning armed with an
iron hammer and caused multiple injuries which has resulted in their death.
The alleged occurrence took place inside their residential house where the
deceased persons were residing together. The prosecution has further alleged
that after committing the crime, the petitioner had taken away various articles
from the house and subsequently made disclosure statement(s) pursuant to
which certain articles, including the briefcase, camera, mobile phone and SIM
card, were recovered.
Though the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but he
has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of credible information and
material surfaced against him. The involvement of the petitioner, in the
present case, has emerged on account of supplementary statement of the
complainant and his disclosure statement(s) and the recoveries allegedly
effected pursuant thereto prima facie indicate his active role. The evidentiary
value and admissibility of such material would be examined by the trial Court
at the appropriate stage. The role attributed to the petitioner is not merely
incidental. The investigation has revealed that the petitioner is alleged to
have entered the house by scaling its boundary wall and thereafter murder all
the three occupants by using an iron hammer. Thus, the allegations against
the petitioner disclose a specific and active role in the commission of the
alleged crime.
10. The plea of the petitioner with regard to prolonged incarceration
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
does not persuade this Court as the said factum, by itself, is not sufficient to

CRM-M-49808-2026 10

extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, particularly, in light
of the fact that there is nothing to arrive at the conclusion that trial is getting
unduly delayed as out of 28 witnesses 09 have been examined so far.
Furthermore, the mere duration of incarceration, standing alone, does not
constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail, especially in
light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on record.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the 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 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 11, 2026
Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document