P&H HC Denies Third Bail Plea To Man Accused Of Firing At Police After Alleged Roadside Robbery Attempt, Finds No Substantial Change

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 320 dated 12 August 2024, registered under Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132 and 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and two co-accused attempted to stop vehicles on a road to commit robbery and fired at police officers when the police attempted to apprehend them; the petitioner was apprehended at the scene after sustaining a firearm injury.

His two earlier bail petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn on 3 November 2025 and 16 February 2026.

The petitioner relied, among other grounds, on parity with co-accused who had obtained bail, completion of the investigation, and his period in custody.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s alleged role.

Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court considered the petitioner’s request for regular bail.

Relying on Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another, 2024:PHHC:054064, the Court stated that a successive regular-bail petition is not barred merely because an earlier petition was filed or dismissed; however, the applicant must show a substantial change in circumstances, and a merely superficial or ostensible change is insufficient.

What amounts to such a change depends on the facts of each case, and relevant considerations may include further incarceration, trial progress, witness developments, and changes in the accused’s medical condition.

The Court also applied the principle that police witnesses cannot be discredited solely because they are police officials, and that parity does not entitle an accused to bail mechanically where the alleged role is distinct and graver.

The Court found that the grounds advanced—including the petitioner’s alleged false implication, injury, lack of independent witnesses, and parity—had been available earlier and did not establish a fresh, substantial change in circumstances.

Although approximately eight months had passed since the second petition and the investigation was complete, the Court held that, in the circumstances, the passage of time and filing of the challan were insufficient grounds for bail.

Because the earlier petitions had been withdrawn without a decision on merits, the Court nevertheless considered the present petition on its merits.

It found prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the alleged incident, treated the credibility of the police witnesses as a matter for trial, and rejected parity because the petitioner’s alleged role was distinct and graver.

The third petition for regular bail was dismissed; any observations made were not to affect the merits of the case, and pending applications were also disposed of.