CRM-M-29125 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 212 Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. registered under Sections District Fazilka dismissed by this Court, vide order dated the order dated 13.11.2024 reads as under: 29125-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petition oner under Section 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC District Fazilka. The first petition, bearing number dismissed by this Court, vide order dated the order dated 13.11.2024 reads as under: “6. The petitioner is alleged to have duped of a sum of Rs.70,00,000/ accused on the pretext of securing a government job for his son. He is a habitual offender as he is stated to be involved in forty six cases. He had also been declared an absconder. There is nothing on record to show th undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, his IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29125-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The instant one is the second petition, which has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 80 dated 06.05.2024 420 and 406 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-51562-2024, was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2024. The operative part of the order dated 13.11.2024 reads as under: “6. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the complainant 70,00,000/- by conniving with the co accused on the pretext of securing a government job for his son. He is a habitual offender as he is stated to be involved in forty six cases. He had also been declared an absconder. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, his -1- 2025 (O&M) 02.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent filed by the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 06.05.2024, Sadar Fazilka, , was 13.11.2024. The operative part of the complainant by conniving with the co- accused on the pretext of securing a government job for his son. He is a habitual offender as he is stated to be involved in forty six cases. He had also been declared an absconder. at there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, his MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29125 2. by learned counsel for the petitioner for g is that extended period of incarceration similar case urged by him that the petition deserves to be allowed 3. submitted therein and learned previous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order by this Court by taking into c sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations again quite serious in nature. 47 other criminal cases on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.11.2024, whereby his first petition seeking bail was dismissed by this Court, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 17471 of 2024 but the same has been dismissed as withdraw petition does not deserve to be allowed. 29125-2025 (O&M) antecedents and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. Hence, the same is dismissed.” In the instant petition, the only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for g extended period of incarceration and grant of regular bail to him in a similar case has entitled the petitioner to be released on bail urged by him that the petition deserves to be allowed Status report has been filed by the respondent submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab previous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order by this Court by taking into consideration the contentions raised by both sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations again quite serious in nature. He is a habitual offender and is involved in other criminal cases, most of which are of similar nature on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.11.2024, whereby his first petition seeking bail was dismissed by this Court, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 17471 of 2024 but the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025. petition does not deserve to be allowed. antecedents and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. Hence, the same is dismissed.” he only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and grant of regular bail to him in a etitioner to be released on bail and therefore, it is urged by him that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that the previous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed onsideration the contentions raised by both sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner are He is a habitual offender and is involved in as many as , most of which are of similar nature. If he is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.11.2024, whereby his first petition seeking bail was dismissed by this Court, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 17471 of 2024 but the same has n on 01.04.2025. Therefore, it is urged that the -2- antecedents and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. he only argument which has been raised rant of regular bail to the petitioner and grant of regular bail to him in a and therefore, it is State. It is that the previous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed onsideration the contentions raised by both sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient st the petitioner are as many as . If he is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.11.2024, whereby his first petition seeking bail by way of filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 17471 of 2024 but the same has Therefore, it is urged that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29125 4. and have gone through the record carefully. 5. bail had been dismissed vide order dated filed within proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this re Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292 should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration. 6. petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. 29125-2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the and have gone through the record carefully. The previous petition filed by the petition bail had been dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2024 within a period of about six months of the said order. It is well settled proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this re Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292, wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail ion merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration. After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. The previous petition filed by the petitioner for grant of regular 13.11.2024. The instant one has been six months of the said order. It is well settled proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme , wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail ion merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. -3- at considerable length er for grant of regular . The instant one has been six months of the said order. It is well settled proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme , wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail ion merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period Kalyan Chandra (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29125 Merely the ext some material witnesses is not a ground to extend any such benefit. relevant to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the afore passed by this Court, has been dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025. are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. multiple criminal cases of similar nature. pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially in v circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 02.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 29125-2025 (O&M) Merely the extended/prolonged period of incarceration or examination of some material witnesses is not a ground to extend any such benefit. relevant to mention here that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the afore passed by this Court, has been dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025. are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. multiple criminal cases of similar nature. pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially in view of the fact that no drastic or material change in the circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 02.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ended/prolonged period of incarceration or examination of some material witnesses is not a ground to extend any such benefit. It is also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 13.11.2024, passed by this Court, has been dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He is involved in multiple criminal cases of similar nature. The trial is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, iew of the fact that no drastic or material change in the circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. e clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- ended/prolonged period of incarceration or examination of is also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the said order dated 13.11.2024, There He is involved in a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, iew of the fact that no drastic or material change in the circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. e clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document