High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26555/2026allowed

Shabbir v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-15Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel7 pages

!"!

#$ % &

'( )!#*$ % & $ +, - . . , / "

# $

!"! # $

00000 . ,

- 1,2

()*

+, '-'*

!.. .&&

/0 , '1*

2' 2- '-'( .

223 21- 2124*5 *324'5 2-*425 +,4 &

# ,

' " .

&& . .

&&!

-) 2- '-'(

-(6--

!. ,7

&& .

& 8

&& .

& .

& 9

&& .

,7 && .

;

< 0

&& .

& &&

lathis

dandas

&& & && .

& &

.. ! !& .

lathisdandas & & & 9 0

&& .

& & &

lathis = +&& .

& & !&&

. & && .

& . ;

< * ?

') 2- '-'( ?

& & &

/0< ?

&. .

9 < -) 2- '-'( &

'( 2- '-'(

. && .

9 < ?

-2@ &

& .

;

&A " .&& ( learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 13.05.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. ( 2 ?

.. && . .

& .

B&!

;

.&& 0

.& & &&&!

9 &

= .

0 & .

') 2- '-'(

. && qua

23 -2 '-'3 0 &

&'1

-1

; -*

. &&

;

! !

6 518.

Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

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 " &

&& &&

. & "

lest 9 & ,

. .&

. C 2

2* -3 '-'C& &

-2 -C

2( F

/045 C '

Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, 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-23322023 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."

(( )

.&&

.&A

? D%A# .

D%A# .

&& . 6 45 "

& .

45 "

. & 45 "

& 45 "

& & 45 "

&D 45 "

&&. &&

0 . .= A=

&& &D A0&&<.

45 "

& ) 0

D%A# .

&& &

= .& 2- ,

&& ;

. &&

& &&&

1. ,2

% & 9 8

!.A 6 A, 8

& A,