CRM-M-27691- 106 KAVARDEEP SINGH BHATIA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 09 1. discussing the evidence vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed i (Annexure P-9), time. 2. this Court earlier, was that current FIR is double jeopardy for the reason that on the same set of allegations, one FIR (Crime No.104 of 2021) was registered in Saharanpur and they had gone to Hon’ble Allah Hon’ble Court had directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and refers to Annex -2025 (O&M) -1- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KAVARDEEP SINGH BHATIA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Suneet Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner (Through VC). Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, Asst. AG, Punjab **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 15.06.2023 Punjab State Crime, Phase IV, SAS Nagar The petitioner, whose anticipatory bail was rejected on merits after the evidence vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed i ), has again come up before this Court under Section Petitioner’s counsel argued that one ground which was not argued before this Court earlier, was that current FIR is double jeopardy for the reason that on the allegations, one FIR (Crime No.104 of 2021) was registered in Saharanpur and they had gone to Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for quashing of the same and the Hon’ble Court had directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and refers to Annexure P-10. Annexure P-10 is an order dated 25.11.2024 passed in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CRM-M-27691-2025 (O&M) Decided on: 20.05.2025 …. PETITIONER …. RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, Asst. AG, Punjab. Sections Punjab State IV, 406, 420, 120B IPC The petitioner, whose anticipatory bail was rejected on merits after the evidence vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-23171-2024 again come up before this Court under Section 482 BNSS for second Petitioner’s counsel argued that one ground which was not argued before this Court earlier, was that current FIR is double jeopardy for the reason that on the allegations, one FIR (Crime No.104 of 2021) was registered in Saharanpur bad High Court for quashing of the same and the Hon’ble Court had directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and is an order dated 25.11.2024 passed in the The petitioner, whose anticipatory bail was rejected on merits after 2024 BNSS for second Petitioner’s counsel argued that one ground which was not argued before this Court earlier, was that current FIR is double jeopardy for the reason that on the allegations, one FIR (Crime No.104 of 2021) was registered in Saharanpur bad High Court for quashing of the same and the Hon’ble Court had directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and is an order dated 25.11.2024 passed in the Anju Goel 2025.05.23 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27691- petition under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Hon’ble Allahbad High Court and in para 7 of the said order, the said Court has observed that no coercive action shall be taken against the the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P 3. the same set of allegations present FIR No.9 (Annexure P 15.06.2023. 4. to the petitioner even at the time of dismissal of first anticipatory bail application and they did not bring it to the notice of this Court and now they reopened the said arguments. He further submits that second petition for antic maintainable when the first one was dismissed on merits and prayed for dismissal of petition. 5. petition with liberty to file an application for regular bail after concerned Court and further prayed for direction to concerned Court to release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition for regular bail as this is a case of double jeopardy. 6. after surrender before the concerned Court on or before -2025 (O&M) -2- 2 petition under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Hon’ble Allahbad High Court and in para 7 of the said order, the said Court has observed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the said FIR. Petitioner further draws attention to para 2 the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), which reads as under: “2.The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings as well as orders dated 14.03.2024 and 29.08.2024 in Case No.9957 of 2021 crime No.104 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406 & IPC, Police Station Qutubsher, District Saharanpur, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Perusal of the above para reveals that FIR registered in 2021 whereas on the same set of allegations present FIR No.9 (Annexure P Counsel for the State submits that point of double to the petitioner even at the time of dismissal of first anticipatory bail application and they did not bring it to the notice of this Court and now they reopened the said arguments. He further submits that second petition for antic maintainable when the first one was dismissed on merits and prayed for dismissal of Faced with this, petitioner’s counsel wants to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an application for regular bail after concerned Court and further prayed for direction to concerned Court to release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition for regular bail as this is a case of double jeopardy. Given above, petitioner is directed to file an application for regular bail after surrender before the concerned Court on or before petition under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Hon’ble Allahbad High Court and in para 7 of the said order, the said Court has observed that no coercive action shall be applicant in the said FIR. Petitioner further draws attention to para 2 of ), which reads as under:- “2.The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of . to quash the entire orders dated 14.03.2024 and 29.08.2024 in Case No.9957 of 2021 arising out of case crime No.104 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Qutubsher, District Saharanpur, icial Magistrate, Saharanpur.” Perusal of the above para reveals that FIR registered in 2021 whereas on the same set of allegations present FIR No.9 (Annexure P-1) was registered on Counsel for the State submits that point of double jeopardy was available to the petitioner even at the time of dismissal of first anticipatory bail application and they did not bring it to the notice of this Court and now they reopened the said arguments. He further submits that second petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the first one was dismissed on merits and prayed for dismissal of Faced with this, petitioner’s counsel wants to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an application for regular bail after surrender before the concerned Court and further prayed for direction to concerned Court to release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition for regular bail as this is a case ected to file an application for regular bail after surrender before the concerned Court on or before 31.05.2025 at 11 AM. In case, petition under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Hon’ble Allahbad High Court and in para 7 of the said order, the said Court has observed that no coercive action shall be of Perusal of the above para reveals that FIR registered in 2021 whereas on 1) was registered on jeopardy was available to the petitioner even at the time of dismissal of first anticipatory bail application and they did not bring it to the notice of this Court and now they reopened the said ipatory bail is not maintainable when the first one was dismissed on merits and prayed for dismissal of Faced with this, petitioner’s counsel wants to withdraw the present surrender before the concerned Court and further prayed for direction to concerned Court to release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition for regular bail as this is a case ected to file an application for regular bail 2025 at 11 AM. In case, Anju Goel 2025.05.23 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27691- such application is filed, the said Court shall release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition/app by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623 7. remain present on all the dates including the date of decision and in he shall surrender before the concerned Court. 8. demonstrate that it was a case of dou clarified that the concerned Court shall not be influenced by any observation this Court in previous order or in this order and shall decide the same on its If the petitioner fails to surre AM, this order shall stand recalled automatically under Section 403 BNSS. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20.05.2025 anju -2025 (O&M) -3- 3 such application is filed, the said Court shall release the petitioner on interim bail till the disposal of his petition/application on merits in view of the ratio of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623. It is further clarified that at the time of hearing remain present on all the dates including the date of decision and in shall surrender before the concerned Court. It is further clarified that it shall be open for the demonstrate that it was a case of double jeopardy before the concerned clarified that the concerned Court shall not be influenced by any observation this Court in previous order or in this order and shall decide the same on its If the petitioner fails to surrender before the trial Court on AM, this order shall stand recalled automatically under Section 403 BNSS. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid observation. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable such application is filed, the said Court shall release the petitioner on interim bail till the lication on merits in view of the ratio of the judgment passed Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of It is further clarified that at the time of hearing of the bail, petitioner shall remain present on all the dates including the date of decision and in case of dismissal, It is further clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to ble jeopardy before the concerned Court. It is clarified that the concerned Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in previous order or in this order and shall decide the same on its own merits. nder before the trial Court on or before 31.05.2025 at 11 AM, this order shall stand recalled automatically under Section 403 BNSS. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid observation. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No passed Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of petitioner shall , petitioner to Court. It is made by own merits. 2025 at 11 Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid observation. Anju Goel 2025.05.23 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh