CRM-M- IN 111 Lachhmi N Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 23.10.2025 324(4), 19 Fazilka, ha petition bea by this Cou -14351-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA hmi Narayan @ Laxmi Narayan @ Gu Versus of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Ms. M.N. Jajoria, Advocate fo Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P Ms. Geeta Rani, Advocate for **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse .2025, registered against him unde 4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, at Police , has filed the present 3rd petition f ion bearing CRM-M-65419-2025, seek is Court vide order dated 22.12.2025. “1. Petitioner, an accused 23.10.2025, registered agains 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 o Abohar, has filed the present bail. 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-14351-2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 @ Gudari …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. cate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. te for complainant. accused in case FIR No. 251 date under Sections 331, 118(1), 115(2 olice Station City-I, Abohar, Distri ition for grant of anticipatory bail. Fir seeking similar relief, was dismisse 2025. Same is reproduced hereinafter: used in case FIR No. 251 date ainst him under Sections 331, 118(1 90 of BNS, at Police Station City sent petition for grant of anticipato .2026 dated 115(2), District First smissed nafter:- dated 18(1), ity-1, patory GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 -2 2. Relevant facts as emerg be noticed hereinbelow:- Sunil Kumar, son of Soh Sant Nagar, Abohar, set the c complaint pointing therein tha Gautam Sarbata, Lucky and the street. He tried to stop th AM, these persons along wi armed with ‘kapas’ walked in gave beatings to Rahul. Whe Lucky armed with ‘Kapa’ hit h side of forehead. All the misc Aditya, Mokesh Pandit and petitioner) armed with danda and after breaking various ho from the spot along wi Complainant alleged that Luc in sale and purchase of into Both, complainant and Rahu Hospital, Abohar, where firs account of delicate medical referred to Guru Gobind Sing further treatment. With this the police authorities to catch appropriate proceedings aga complaint and medico legal re 2- erging from the documents on recor f Sohan Lal, resident of Street No.2/ the criminal law in motion by filing n that at about 11 PM on 22.10.202 and Sumit were creating a ruckus p them. Little later at about 1-1.3 g with 8-10 other unknown person ed into the street, raised lalkaras an When complainant tried to stop them hit him (c) with the same on the rig miscreants including Mukesh, Ama nd Laxmi Narayan @ Gudri (prese andas forcibly entered his (c) hou us household articles, they fled awa with their respective weapon Lucky etc. are drug addicts and de intoxicants. Vehicle was arrange ahul were got admitted in the Civ first-aid was provided to them. O dical condition, injured Rahul wa Singh Medical College, Faridkot fo this backdrop, complainant requeste atch hold of the miscreants, to initia against them. On the basis of sa al reports, a formal case vide FIR N record o.2/3, iling a .2025, s in 1.30 ersons s and them, e right Aman, resent house away apons. d deal anged. Civil m. On l was ot for uested nitiate f said IR No. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 -3 251 dated 23.10.2025, was Sections 331, 118(1), 115(2), Police Station City-1, Abohar. As per the MLR of com injury on right side of his f observation whereas, Rahul, r injuries No. 3, 4 were opined edged weapon and injuries No the injuries were kept under ob Apprehending his arres for grant of pre-arrest bail. Th Sessions Judge, Fazilka, in t Aggrieved of which, the presen 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has been falsely im on account of political rivalr levelled by complainant. No su Continuing further, lear

  
       
 
  



 

    
   
 
   Learned counsel f interrogation of petitioner is be effected from him, nonethel 3- was registered against him, und 5(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, har. f complainant, he received one blu his forehead, which was kept und ul, received five injuries, out of whic ined to have been caused with shar s No.1, 2 and 5 with blunt weapon. A er observation. rrest, petitioner moved an applicatio il. The same was dismissed by learne in terms of order dated 11.11.202 resent petition has been filed. for the petitioner contends th y implicated in the present case on ivalry. False allegations have bee o such incident ever occurred. learned counsel contends that     




 


  


 

      
    
        


 el further submits that custodi r is not needed, for no recovery is etheless, however, he is still ready an under NS, at blunt under which sharp on. At cation arned .2025. that e only been  



  

 todial y is to dy and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 -4 willing to join investigation as allowing present petition has b 4. Per Contra, while opp learned State counsel submits unlawful assembly forcibly en at late hours and broke/damag assaulted him (c) and Rahul. 

      
 
  
 
  
 
     
  


 

   " 
    
    "
       

    5. Heard learned counsel the documents on record. 6. Before expressing any o by learned counsel of the pa refer to certain judgments o wherein the factors to be kep application for grant of anticip In State of M.P. v. Ram v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (19 4- n as and when called for. Prayer fo has been made. opposing the request of petitione mits that petitioner being member y entered in the house of complaina amaged the household articles as als . He next contends

    
  


  
    
  

 
  

      
  

    !

  
  

   
            
 # 
    $  
nsel for the parties and have peruse ny opinion on the submissions raise e parties, it would be appropriate nts of Hon’ble the Supreme Cour kept in mind while dealing with a nticipatory bail, have been discussed Ram Kishna Balothia [State of M.P , (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995 SCC (Cr er for tioner, ber of ainant s also   
      
  
   
  
 erused raised iate to Court, ith an ssed. f M.P. (Cri) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 -5 439], the Supreme Court held is not a part of Article 21 of t as under: (SCC p. 226, para 7 “7. … We find it diffic Section 438 of the Co integral part of Article 2 provision similar to S Procedure Code. The L recommended introduc anticipatory bail. It obs ‘We agree that this wou we must add that it is in power should be ex recommendation, Sectio first time, in the Crim Looking to the cautio Commission, the powe conferred only on a Co Also, anticipatory bail right. It is essentially after the coming into fo be considered as an ess the Constitution. And special category of of violative of Article 21. ( 5- held that the right of anticipatory ba of the Constitution of India and he ra 7) difficult to accept the contention th Code of Criminal Procedure is a icle 21. In the first place, there was n to Section 438 in the old Crimin he Law Commission in its 41st Repo duction of a provision for grant observed: would be a useful advantage. Thoug is in very exceptional cases that suc exercised.’ In the light of th ection 438 was incorporated, for th Criminal Procedure Code of 197 utious recommendation of the La power to grant anticipatory bail Court of Session or the High Cour bail cannot be granted as a matter ally a statutory right conferred lon to force of the Constitution. It cann n essential ingredient of Article 21 nd its non-application to a certa f offences cannot be considered a 21. (emphasis supplied) ry bail d held n that is an as no iminal eport ant of hough t such f this or the 1973. Law ail is Court. tter of long annot 21 of ertain ed as GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 -6 72. We are conscious of th behind the introduction of Sec individual's personal liberty possibility of being humiliate unnecessary police custody. in view that a criminal offence individual, rather the large Therefore, a delicate balanc between the two rights—safeg individual and the societal refusal to grant anticipatory b rights conferred upon the ap Constitution of India. 73. to 76 XX XX XX 77. After referring to Si [Siddharam Satlingappa Mh (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011 judgments and observing that only in exceptional circumsta State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC the Supreme Court held as und “19. Parameters for serious offence are req while granting such re reasons therefor. Antici exceptional circumstanc of the view that the app 6- of the fact that the legislative inte f Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard th erty and to protect him from th iliated and from being subjected y. However, the court must also kee fence is not just an offence against a arger societal interest is at stak lance is required to be establishe afeguarding the personal liberty of a tal interest. It cannot be said th ry bail would amount to denial of th appellant under Article 21 of th XX Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetr Mhetre v. State of Maharashtr 011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and oth that anticipatory bail can be grante mstances, in [Jai Prakash Singh SCC 379: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468 s under: (SCC p. 386, para 19) for grant of anticipatory bail in required to be satisfied and furth h relief, the court must record th nticipatory bail can be granted only stances where the court is prima fac applicant has falsely been enroped intent rd the m the ted to o keep nst an stake. lished of an d that of the of the hetre shtra, other ranted ngh v. 468], in a urther rd the nly in facie ped in GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2. petition bea The said p dated 05.02 3. parties hav -14351-2026 -7 the crime and would n Ganesh Babu v. P.T. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 3 Mohd. Sajid Husain M 213: (2008) 1 SCC (C Padam Narain Aggarw SCC (Cri) 1].)” 7. The factual backdrop o the petitioner in the entire inci 2 of this order. In view of s State counsel, the role attribut is of the opinion that his pr weapon used in the commissi been able to make out a c hardship in his favour entitl ordinary relief of grant of pre 8. The petition being d dismissed.” After the dismissal of 1st petit ion bearing CRM-M-6807-2026 seekin said petition was dismissed as withd 05.02.206, in the following terms:- “Learned counsel for the petit present petition. Dismissed as withdrawn.” The only changed circumstan es have amicably resolved their di 7- ld not misuse his liberty. (See [D.K .T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434 ri) 345], [State of Maharashtra in Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SC (Cri) 176] and [Union of India garwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) op of the case and the role played b incident has been highlighted in par of submissions advanced by learne ributed to petitioner in incident, Cou s presence is needed to recover th mission of offence, hence, he has n a case of exceptional depravity o ntitling him the grant of this extr pre-arrest bail. g devoid of any merit is hereb petition on merits, petitioner filed 2 seeking similar relief of pre-arrest bai withdrawn from this Court vide ord petitioner prays for withdrawal of th mstance put forth by petitioner is th eir dispute and have entered into [D.K. 434: tra v. SCC dia v. 009) 1 yed by n para arned Court er the as not ity or extra ereby filed 2nd est bail. e order of the r is that into a GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- compromis on the said the FIR in before this for allowin made. 4. in the light petition fo petitioner d 5. be filed onl the dismiss U.P. 1978 as under:- -14351-2026 -8 romise vide compromise deed dated said compromise, a petition bearing IR in question quashed has been file re this Court. Hence, there being no need f llowing the present petition seeking re Questions that need adjudicati e light of facts and circumstances of ion for grant of anticipatory bail is ioner deserves the relief sought for. It is settled that second petition led only if there has been substantial c ismissal of the first one. In Babu Si 978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the - “…………………But an order does not necessarily preciud giving more materials, furth considerations. While we s circumstance, we cannot acce barred from second considera direction is not a conclus reconsideration is not over tu view, we entertain the applica and con.” 8- dated 10.2.2026 (Annexure P-6). Base earing CRM-M-13107-2026 for gettin en filed, which is pending adjudicatio need for custodial interrogation, pray king relief of anticipatory bail has bee dication, at this stage, are as to wheth ces of case brought on record, secon bail is maintainable. If yes, wheth etition for grant of anticipatory bail ca ntial change in the circumstances sinc u Singh and others vs. The State o , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has he rder refusing an application for ba ciude another, on a later occasio further, developments and differe e surely must set store by th accede to the faint plea that we ar ideration' at a later stage. An interi clusive adjudication, and update er turning an earlier negation. In th plication and evaluate the merits pr Based r getting dication , prayer as been whether econd whether bail can es since tate of has held r bail asion, fferent y this e are, nterim dated In this its pro GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2080, this C -14351-2026 -9 In Manjinder Kaur vs. State , this Court has held as follows:- “2. The question, therefore, and answered is "whether application under Section 438 first one filed by the petitioner xxxx xxxx 12. We have already held th anticipatory bail application w such an application has been by passing a speaking order. application, it can be said th under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subsequent bail application w on the ground that some ne change in circumstances developments such as arrest o bail granted to co-accused, di details, new documents or illn not be maintainable on a plea earlier occasion failed to co material on record or that accused was not taken, agitate However, the second/subseque 438 Cr.P.C. would be mainta material and substantive ch 9- tate of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Hera re, which requires to be considere ether a second anticipatory ba 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when th oner has been withdrawn?" xxxx ld that second/subsequent/successiv ion would not be maintainable whe een dismissed by the Court on meri der. Further qua the anticipatory ba id that once a first bail applicatio .C. stand withdrawn, a second o on would not be maintainable mere e new inconsequential and cosmet es has/have come about, furth est of co-accused or main accused o , different considerations, some mo r illness of the accused. It would als plea or ground that the Court on th o consider any particular aspect o hat any point then available to th itated or pressed before the Court. equent bail application under Sectio intainable only if there is substanti e change in the fact situation an erald idered bail en the essive where merits ry bail cation nd or erely smetic urther sed or more d also on the ect or to the ection tantial n and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2021(1) RC 65, a coord of Hon’ble follows:- -14351-2026 -10 circumstances of the case due In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. Th ) RCR Criminal) 843, the Hon’ble S “……………..The specious rea cannot be invoked for success once it is rejected by a speakin Judge." In Bhisham Singh v. State o coordinate Bench of this Court while on’ble Supreme Court and of this Cou “11. As an epilogue to the principles emerge: I. Second/successive ant under 438 of Cr.P.C., hence such petition oug ground of maintainabili II. Such second/successive whether earlier p withdrawn/dismissed as prosecution or earlier p III. For the second/successi succeed, the pet essentially/pertinently 10- due to subsequent events or in law." s. The State of Tamil Nadu & anr n’ble Supreme Court has held as under s reasons of change in circumstanc cessive anticipatory bail application eaking order and that too by the sam te of Haryana, 2024 (3) RCR (Crl while discussing the various judgmen is Court, on the subject in issue, held a the above rumination, the followin anticipatory bail petition(s) file .C., 1973 is maintainable in law ought not to be rejected solely on th ability thereof. ssive anticipatory bail petition(s) petition was dismissed a d as not pressed/dismissed for no ier petition was dismissed on merits. cessive anticipatory bail petition(s) petitioner/applicant shall b tly required to show substanti aw." anr., under: tances ations, same (Crl.) dgments , held as owing filed aw & on the (s) is as r non- rits. n(s) to be tantial GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. to the facts assigned by between him compromis -14351-2026 -11 change in circumstan superficial or ostensible IV. No exhaustive guideline what would consti circumstances as every circumstance. Accordin judicial wisdom and dis such second/successive V. In case a Court choo anticipatory bail petitio are pertinently required plea despite such a anticipatory petition (s) Court having successful second/successive petit clearly decipherable fro VI. Once a plea for anticip withdrawn/dismissed as prosecution or dismisse second/successive antic entertained by a Session Keeping the above settled prin e facts of the case in hand. The only by the petitioner is the compromis him and complainant party. The C romise produced along with the peti 11- stances and showing of a me sible change would not suffice. elines can possible be laid down as nstitute substantial change very case has its own unique fact rdingly, this issue is best left to d discretion of the Court dealing wi sive anticipatory bail petition (s). chooses to grant second/successiv etition (s), cogent and lucid reason ired to be recorded for granting suc a plea being second/successiv n (s). In other words, the cause for ssfully countenanced/entertained suc petition(s) ought to be readily an e from the said order passed. ticipatory bail has been dismissed a d as not pressed/dismissed for no issed on merits by the High Court, n anticipatory bail petition (s) shall b ssions Court.” ed principles in mind, let us revert bac only ‘changed circumstance’ promise deed said to have been effecte The Court has examined the purporte e petition. Material on record and th mere as to e in facts/ the g with essive asons g such essive for a d such y and sed as r non- urt, no all be ert back so effected urported and the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- conduct of during the i present pe anticipatory similar reli liberty and him to int complainan events and the so calle it appears t thus, it is complainan enter into withdrawal the house him (c), wh are not kno the agency hands of a mark on the in the light relief soug circumstan taken earlie -14351-2026 -12 uct of the petitioner, who claims to be g the interregnum between the dismiss nt petition raises serious concern. ipatory bail petition and withdrawal ar relief, petitioner was not arrested i ty and an unwarranted space by the Inv to interact with approach and ultim lainant party to sign the so called com ts and timing of compromise, at least a o called settlement is not a voluntary a pears to be an outcome of influence, it is evident that he has misused lainant, who earns his livelihood by d into a compromise after rejection o drawal of 2nd one. Petitioner and his ouse of the complainant, ransacked (c), who suffered five injuries. Even ot known. The Court is duty bound to gency of the Court should not be reduc s of a powerful individual. That apar on the efficiency of the Investigating e light of factual scenario of the case, n f sought for; the so called compro stance’ warranting this Court to tak earlier vide order dated 22.12.2025. 12- s to be a Worker of the a political part ismissal of the petition and filing of th ncern. Despite rejection of his I drawal of the second petition seekin ested instead he was allowed comple the Investigating Agency which enable d ultimately exert pressure upon th led compromise. From the sequence o least at this stage, it can be inferred th tary act flowing from free will. Rathe , intimidation by the petitioner an sused his position to influence/coerc d by doing Jagrans/reciting Bhajans ction of his Ist petition and thereaft nd his other accomplices barged insid acked the house, mercilessly assaulte Even the whereabouts of other accuse und to protect the innocent victims an e reduced to a bargaining incident in th t apart, it also raises a serious questio gating Officer of the case. When viewe case, no ground is made out to grant th compromise deed is not a ‘change to take a different view from what wa 025. al party, g of the his Ist seeking omplete enabled pon the ence of rred that Rather, ner and, e/coerce ans, to ereafter d inside ssaulted accused ims and nt in the question viewed rant the anged hat was GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. failed to m entitling him 8. dismissed. 17.03.2026 gbs -14351-2026 -13 In view of the detailed discu d to make out a case of exceptional ling him for the grant of this extra ordin Thus, finding no merit in the in issed. .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 13- discussion made above, petitioner ha tional depravity/hardship in his favou a ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. he instant petition, the same is hereb (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No ner has favour s hereby NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document