CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 106 Sandeep State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in registered 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat arrest/anticipatory bail 18.03.2026 by a detailed order attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation. of anticipatory/pre 06.07.2026 -36863-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 14.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Kapil Pandey, Advocate, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Nitin Jangra, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on 18.03.2026 by a detailed order after examining the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation. Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition fo of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 06.07.2026. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36863-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL S.P. Sharma, Advocate with , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Nitin Jangra, Advocate for the complainant. petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory case bearing FIR No.0236 dated 20.04.2026 under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre before this Court which was dismissed on after examining the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation. Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory FIR No.0236 dated 20.04.2026 under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- before this Court which was dismissed on after examining the allegations, the role r grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2. accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and reached the spot with a common object of extorti further alleged that committing the extortion and also extended threats to kill him. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled in the FIR are fabricated and motivated. counsel has further iterated that that the dispute between the parties is esse counsel has which casts serious doubt upon the Learned counsel has further contended after the dismissal of the earlier petitioner, certain new facts have emerged which constitute material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has recently come across an interview given by J who was present at the time of alleged occurrence. that in the said interview, Jai Karan has fired a shot from his licensed pistol during the been further submitted version set out in the FIR, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of Jai Karan having fired any shot. empty cartridge from the spot which lends by Jai Karan and creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution allegation that the petitioner ha -36863-2026 As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and reached the spot with a common object of extorting money from the complainant. It alleged that they caused injuries to the complainant in the course of committing the extortion and also extended threats to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has r has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled in the FIR are fabricated and motivated. counsel has further iterated that no incident of extortion ever took place and that the dispute between the parties is esse has further contended that there is delay in registration of the FIR casts serious doubt upon the story put forth by the Learned counsel has further contended after the dismissal of the earlier titioner, certain new facts have emerged which constitute material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has recently come across an interview given by Jai Karan i.e. brother of the complainant, who was present at the time of alleged occurrence. that in the said interview, Jai Karan has categorically stated that he himself fired a shot from his licensed pistol during the been further submitted that this statement is in direct contradiction to the version set out in the FIR, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of Jai Karan having fired any shot. Furthermore, rtridge from the spot which lends by Jai Karan and creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution allegation that the petitioner has fired upon the complainant side. According to learned 2 As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and reached the spot with a ng money from the complainant. It has been they caused injuries to the complainant in the course of committing the extortion and also extended threats to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the r has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and the allegations levelled in the FIR are fabricated and motivated. Learned no incident of extortion ever took place and that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. Learned that there is delay in registration of the FIR story put forth by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further contended after the dismissal of the earlier titioner, certain new facts have emerged which constitute material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has recently ai Karan i.e. brother of the complainant, who was present at the time of alleged occurrence. Learned counsel submits categorically stated that he himself fired a shot from his licensed pistol during the alleged occurrence. It has that this statement is in direct contradiction to the version set out in the FIR, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of Jai Furthermore, the police has recovered only one rtridge from the spot which lends credence to the statement made by Jai Karan and creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution allegation fired upon the complainant side. According to learned As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co- accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and reached the spot with a has been they caused injuries to the complainant in the course of that the and the Learned no incident of extortion ever took place and ntially civil in nature. Learned that there is delay in registration of the FIR prosecution. Learned counsel has further contended after the dismissal of the earlier titioner, certain new facts have emerged which constitute material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has recently ai Karan i.e. brother of the complainant, Learned counsel submits categorically stated that he himself has that this statement is in direct contradiction to the version set out in the FIR, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of Jai recovered only one to the statement made by Jai Karan and creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution allegation fired upon the complainant side. According to learned AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel, the said development clearly fired the shot and not the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in ci procedural grounds and on merits. the earlier 18.03.2026 the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone learned State counsel has iterated that levelled against the petitioner occurrence. It progress and effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the petition. -36863-2026 counsel, the said development clearly indicates that it was Jai Karan who fired the shot and not the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as he is ready to join investigation and is willing investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated Per contra, learned State counsel anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that earlier petition was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order on 18.03.2026 and neither any prayer was made nor the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone learned State counsel has iterated that levelled against the petitioner regarding his active participation in the occurrence. It has been further contended that progress and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the 3 indicates that it was Jai Karan who fired the shot and not the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the eady to join investigation and is willing to join the investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without rcumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that by this Court by a detailed order on and neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted t the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. On merits, learned State counsel has iterated that specific allegations have been regarding his active participation in the contended that the investigation is still in custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant indicates that it was Jai Karan who Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the to join the investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without rcumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that by this Court by a detailed order on liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that . On merits, specific allegations have been regarding his active participation in the investigation is still in custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for of events. instant AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4.1. submission in tandem with the learned State counsel and has prayed for the dismissal of the petition i 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. this Court in a titled as RCR(Criminal) 65 -36863-2026 Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has raised submission in tandem with the learned State counsel and has prayed for the dismissal of the petition in hand. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024 RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under: “11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed f or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive anticipatory 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. 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. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory 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) 4 Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has raised submission in tandem with the learned State counsel and has prayed for the I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024 relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory 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. For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and wing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not 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. Accordingly, s issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are rtinently 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) Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has raised submission in tandem with the learned State counsel and has prayed for the and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and wing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not 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. Accordingly, s issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are rtinently 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) AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by considering the material placed on record including the allegations, the role ascribed to the petitioner as also the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to the truth. anticipatory bail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on attributes a specific role to the petitioner in forming an unlawful assembly, causing injuries to intimidation and violence. constitute a given by Jai Karan, brother of the complainant, dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said contention does not merit acceptance which warrant statement allegedly made in the interview is a matter of evidence and the veracity of investigation/trial. 8. which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for -36863-2026 ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court.” Indubitably, the first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by considering the material placed on record including the allegations, the role ascribed to the petitioner as also the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to . Thereafter, in the instant petition i.e. nticipatory bail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on attributes a specific role to the petitioner in forming an unlawful assembly, causing injuries to the complainant and attempting to extort money through intimidation and violence. The main ground urged by the petitioner to constitute a material change in circumstance given by Jai Karan, brother of the complainant, dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said contention does not merit acceptance which warrants reconsideration of prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The statement allegedly made in the interview is a matter of evidence and the veracity of the same can only be examined during the course of investigation/trial. There is no substantial change which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for 5 clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive etition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 18.03.2026 after considering the material placed on record including the gravity of the allegations, the role ascribed to the petitioner and the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to unravel Thereafter, in the instant petition i.e. second petition (for grant of nticipatory bail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on 18.03.2026). The prosecution attributes a specific role to the petitioner in forming an unlawful assembly, the complainant and attempting to extort money through ground urged by the petitioner to change in circumstance(s) is an interview allegedly given by Jai Karan, brother of the complainant, to a media outlet after the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said contention does not merit acceptance at this stage, reconsideration of prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The statement allegedly made in the interview is a matter of evidence and the the same can only be examined during the course of There is no substantial change nay any change in circumstances which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive etition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) after ravity of the and the stage of investigation unravel petition (for grant of nticipatory bail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken The prosecution attributes a specific role to the petitioner in forming an unlawful assembly, the complainant and attempting to extort money through ground urged by the petitioner to is an interview allegedly after the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition. However, this Court is of at this stage, reconsideration of prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The statement allegedly made in the interview is a matter of evidence and the the same can only be examined during the course of any change in circumstances which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- anticipatory bail. alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the dismissed on gap of approximately 0 deliberately the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating th The process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at fr abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice. Prot of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, disentitles him for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds -36863-2026 anticipatory bail. Ergo, the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the dismissed on 18.03.2026 and the instant petition has been preferred after a approximately 04 months. It is evident that the petitioner has deliberately evaded the process of law for the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating th rocess of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fairly. However; if the petitioner employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice. Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, disentitles him for grant of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds 6 the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the first petition was and the instant petition has been preferred after a . It is evident that the petitioner has evaded the process of law for about 04 months. The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this second petition. rocess of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which . However; if the petitioner-accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically ustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamounts to an abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause racted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest bail, in absence of convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of about 04 months on part the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, disentitles him for rmore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process of law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the first petition was and the instant petition has been preferred after a . It is evident that the petitioner has . The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any petition. rocess of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically to an abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause racted absence, eluding the process arrest bail, in absence of convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for on part contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, disentitles him for rmore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- urged by the petitioner in the present petitio & decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated 18.03.2026 present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitione 10. (i) dismissed. (ii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the being influenced with this order. (iii) July 10, 202 Ajay -36863-2026 urged by the petitioner in the present petitio & decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated 18.03.2026. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/or submissions noted h shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also sta 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 urged by the petitioner in the present petition have already been considered & decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated . From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable r to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency further, in accordance with law, without Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No n have already been considered & decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated . From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby ereinabove the investigating agency without AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document