Harman Singh @ Happy v. State of Punjab

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Present second 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.159 dated 8.10.2025 under Sections 336, 324(4), 3(5), 125, 249, 253, 61(2), 191(3), 190, 308 and 238 of BNS of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. For the cause of convenience, the details of the prosecution case have been drawn from the order dated 05.01.2026, wherein the bail

CRM-M No.35701 of 2026 (O&M) -2-

petition preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, was rejected, which reads thus: 'Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Dara Ram son of Devi Chand resident of village Bora P.S Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur, wherein he stated that he is running a Medical store at village Bora. On 8.10.2025 at about 8:30 PM, three persons came on motorcycle from the side of Shri Anandpur Sahib road. They had stopped their motorcycle in front of their shop. Then, the person, sitting on rear seat of said motorcycle, who was having muffled face, came down from the said motorcycle and fired two shots with his weapon, which hit on the front glass of the shop, due to which, the said glass was broken. Thereafter, the above said persons fled away from the spot on their motorcycle towards Garhshankar side. The applicants-accused were arrested in this case on 25.10.2025, Hence, this application for regular bail.'

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has not been attributed any active role qua the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witness namely PW-Dara Ram has turned hostile and thus, the trial is not likely to conclude into conviction. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶3LearnedoStateocounselohasofiledoshortoreplyobyowayoofoaffida ito ofoDeputyoSuperintendentoofo Police,o Sub!Di isionoGarshan"ar,o Districto #oshiarpur.oo$aisingosub%issionsoinotande%owithotheosaidoshortoreply,o 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

CRM-M No.35701 of 2026 (O&M) -3-

place on record custody certificate dated 06.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

¶4I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶5The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was presented on 23.12.2025 & charges were framed on 22.04.2026. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 2 have been examined till date. It is also not in dispute that PW-Dara Ram has turned hostile. The rival contentions raised at Bar 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 petitioners absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

5.1 As per the custody certificate filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 8 months and 3 days & is stated to be involved in one more FIR/case. #owe er,othisofactu%o cannoto beo ao groundo sufficiento byo itself,o too declineo theo concessiono ofo regularobailotootheopetitioneroinotheo&'$oino(uestionowhenoaocaseoiso%adeo outoforograntooforegularobailoquaotheo&'$oino(uestionobyoratiocinatingoupono theofacts)circu%stancesoofotheosaido&'$.o$elianceoinothisoregardocanobeo placedouponotheojudg%entoofotheo#on*bleoSupre%eo+ourtoinoMaulanao Mohd.o Amiro Rashadio v.o Stateo ofo U.P.o ando another,o 2012o (1)o RCRo (Criminal)o5 !,oaoDi isiono-enchojudg%entoofotheo#on*bleo+alcuttao#igho

CRM-M No.35701 of 2026 (O&M) -4-

+ourtoinocaseoofoSridharo"asov.oState,o1## o(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o$%%o.o judg%entsoofothiso+ourtoinoCRM&Mo'o.( 22&2022otitledoasoA)hilesho Sin*hov.oStateoofo+ar,ana,odecidedoono/0.11./2/1,oando-alra.ov.oStateoofo +ar,ana,o1## o(()oRCRo(Criminal)o1#1.

5.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2026. Keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner, pace of trial and the fact that the FIR-co%plainant)PW-Dara has turned hostile, 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 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 o CRM-MoNo.35701oofo2026o(O&M)ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-5-o o bailo petition(s),o cogento ando lucido reasonso areo pertinentlyo requiredotoobeorecordedoforograntingosuchopleaodespiteosuchoao pleao beingo second/successiveo petition(s).o Ino othero words,o theo causeoforoaoCourtohavingosuccessfullyocountenanced/entertainedo sucho second/successiveo petition(s)o oughto too beo readilyo ando clearlyodecipherableofromotheosaidoorderopassed."o o o Sufficeotoosay,ofurtherodetentionoofotheopetitioneroasoanoundertrialo isonotowarrantedoinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase.o

6.o Ino viewo ofo above,o theo presento petitiono iso allowed.o Petitionero iso orderedotoobeoreleasedoonoregularobailoonohisofurnishingobail/suretyobondsotoo theosatisfactionoofotheoLd.oconcernedotrialoCourt/DutyoMagistrate.oHowever,o ino additiono too conditionso thato mayo beo imposedo byo theo concernedo trialo Court/DutyoMagistrate,otheopetitioneroshalloremainoboundobyotheofollowingo conditions:oo

(i)o Theopetitioneroshallonotomis-useotheolibertyogranted.oo

(ii)oo Theopetitioneroshallonototamperowithoanyoevidence,ooralo orodocumentary,oduringotheotrial.oo

(iii)oo Theo petitionero shallo noto absento himselfo ono anyo dateo beforeotheotrial.oo

(iv)oo Theo petitionero shallo noto commito anyo offenceo whileo ono bail.oo

(v)oo Theopetitioneroshallodepositohisopassport,oifoany,owithotheo trialoCourt.oo

(vi)o Theo petitionero shallo giveo hiso cellphoneo numbero too theo Investigatingo Officer/SHOo ofo concernedo Policeo Stationo andoshallonotochangeohisocell-phoneonumberowithoutoprioro permissionoofotheotrialoCourt/IllaqaoMagistrate.oo

(vii)o Theopetitioneroshallonotoinoanyomannerotryotoodelayotheo trial.oo o

7.o Inocaseoofobreachoofoanyoofotheoaforesaidoconditions,oandothoseo whichomayobeo imposedobyo theo concernedoTrialo Court/Dutyo Magistrateo aso directedo hereinabove,o oro upono showingo anyo othero sufficiento cause,o theo State/complainanto shallo beo ato libertyo too moveo foro cancellationo ofo theo petitioner'sobail.oo

8.oo Orderedoaccordingly.oo

9.o Nothingosaidohereinaboveoshallobeoconstruedoasoanoexpressionoofo o CRM-MoNo.35701oofo2026o(O&M)ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-6-o o opinionoonotheomeritsoofotheocase.oo

10.oo Sinceo theo maino caseo haso beeno decided,o pendingo miscellaneouso application,oifoany,oshalloalsoostandodisposedoof.o o o o o (SUMEEToGOEL)o o o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGEo

07.08.2026o Naveenoo o o o o Whetherospeaking/reasoned:oo Yes/Noo o o Whetheroreportable:oo o Yes/Noo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.35701 of 2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.08.2026 Date of uploading : 07.08.2026 Harman Singh @ Happy ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.oJaypreetoSingh,oDAG,oPunjab.o ---