01Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging the murders of three elderly persons during a robbery.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–2, 5He was arrested on 8 July 2023; the prosecution relied, among other things, on his disclosure statement, recoveries, and forensic evidence.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–2, 5His earlier regular-bail petition had been withdrawn on 22 September 2025.
pp. 2–6 · ¶ 3–5In the present petition, filed on 1 September 2026, he relied on continued custody and the pace of trial; the State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence.
pp. 2–6 · ¶ 3–5The Court noted that nine of 28 witnesses had been examined.
p. 10 · ¶ 1002Issues
i.Whether the petitioner established a substantial change in circumstances warranting consideration of his second regular-bail petition.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–8ii.Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his custody, the progress of trial, the gravity of the alleged offences, and the material relied on by the prosecution.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 8–1003Law Applied
Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the procedural basis for the application for regular bail.
p. 1 · ¶ 1Relying on Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another, 2024:PHHC:054064, the Court stated that a second or successive regular-bail petition is maintainable and is not barred merely because an earlier petition was withdrawn or dismissed; however, success ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances, which may include further incarceration, trial progress, witnesses’ evidence, or a changed medical condition.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 7No exhaustive test applies, and the assessment depends on the facts of each case.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 7If successive bail is granted, cogent reasons should be recorded.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 7The Court also considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner’s attributed role, the prosecution material, and the progress of trial in assessing bail.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 9–10Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302Section 394Section 201Section 34
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 362
04Reasoning
The Court found that the grounds advanced in the present petition had been available when the earlier petition was withdrawn and that the petitioner had not shown a fresh, substantial change in circumstances.
p. 8 · ¶ 8Nevertheless, because the earlier petition had been withdrawn without a decision on the merits, the Court proceeded to consider the present application on its merits.
p. 8 · ¶ 8It treated the alleged recovery of articles and the forensic material as prima facie indicating an active role, while leaving their evidentiary value and admissibility to the trial.
pp. 4–5, 9 · ¶ 5, 9The Court was not persuaded that custody or trial delay justified bail: it noted that nine of 28 witnesses had been examined and found no basis to conclude that the trial was unduly delayed.
p. 10 · ¶ 10In the circumstances, the seriousness of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner outweighed the grounds advanced for release.
p. 10 · ¶ 1005Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had not established a substantial change in circumstances and, on consideration of the merits, was not entitled to regular bail.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 8–12The petition was dismissed; pending applications were also disposed of.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 8–12The Court directed that its observations should not affect the merits of the case or the proceedings before the investigating agency and trial Court.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 8–12Original Court PDF
RobinvsState Of Punjab
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
