Jagjit Sharma Alias Sundar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision : 19.1.2026 Date of uploading : 19.1.2026 Jagjit Sharma @ Sundar .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present third 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.483 dated 14.6.2024 under Sections 384, 388, 389 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal.

2.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner with the help of Priya Singh blackmailed the complainant and extorted money to the tune of ₹4 crore from him by giving threat of false arrest and defamation in alleged false suicide case of abovesaid Priya Singh. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 16.6.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -2petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR-complainant already stands examined and thus, there is no likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution evidence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

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 16.1.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious and direct allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has defrauded the FIR-complainant of a huge amount, hence, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 16.6.2024 and is stated to be in continuous custody since then. Challan stands presented, after culmination of investigation, on 13.8.2024. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 5 already stand examined till date. It is specific case of the petitioner that the FIR-complainant already stands examined. The

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -3trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall 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 evidence. 6.2 As per custody certificate dated 16.1.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 7 months and 01 day.

As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more cases/FIRs, out of which in one FIR he has already been acquitted. 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.

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -41998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.3 Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.7.2025. However, keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having further incarceration for about 6 more months and the pace of the 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-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 nonprosecution 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

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -5such 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 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 cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

CRM-M No.65492 of 2025 -69. Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 19.1.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No