CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 110 Tirath Ram alias Tirath Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of bearing FIR No. under Sections Act and Section 238 of the BNS, 2023 (added later on) Sadar Nakodar, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. 2. proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by Charan Dass, who alleged that a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner Tirath Singh, alongwith 5/6 individuals, came to the residence of the complainant, used abusive language and threatened his son It was further alleged that a complaint in this regard was lodged at Police Post Kala Sanghia, but no action was taken. Furthermore, on the alleged day of occurrence i.e. 20.08.2024, at about 08:00 -49981-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tirath Ram alias Tirath Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the second attempt under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bearing FIR No.99 dated 21.08.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 238 of the BNS, 2023 (added later on) Sadar Nakodar, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal ings were initiated based on a complaint filed by Charan Dass, who alleged that a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner Tirath Singh, alongwith 5/6 individuals, came to the residence of the complainant, used abusive language and threatened his son namely Kulwinder Singh @ Kindi. It was further alleged that a complaint in this regard was lodged at Police Post Kala Sanghia, but no action was taken. Furthermore, on the alleged day of occurrence i.e. 20.08.2024, at about 08:00 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49981-2025 Date of decision: 08.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences punishable 1(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 238 of the BNS, 2023 (added later on) at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal ings were initiated based on a complaint filed by Charan Dass, who alleged that a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner Tirath Singh, alongwith 5/6 individuals, came to the residence of the complainant, used namely Kulwinder Singh @ Kindi. It was further alleged that a complaint in this regard was lodged at Police Post Kala Sanghia, but no action was taken. Furthermore, on the alleged day of occurrence i.e. 20.08.2024, at about 08:00-08:30 PM, son of the .2025 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences punishable 1(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal ings were initiated based on a complaint filed by Charan Dass, who alleged that a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner Tirath Singh, alongwith 5/6 individuals, came to the residence of the complainant, used namely Kulwinder Singh @ Kindi. It was further alleged that a complaint in this regard was lodged at Police Post Kala Sanghia, but no action was taken. Furthermore, on the alleged day 08:30 PM, son of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complainant namely Kulwinder Singh received a phone call from one Laddu and she immediately left the house on a motorcycle. The complainant and his other son namely Kuldeep Sing @ Babbyu, followed him. Thereafter, near the outskirts of village Uggi, they s individuals. At that time, a swift car (PB09 accused Gurdit Singh @ Guri with Jatinder Singh @ Kohli in the front seat and the Tirath Singh (petitioner herein), Sukhwinder Singh @ Commando and Gurp and Tirath Singh (petitioner herein) alongwith co allegedly began abusing the son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh, while holding attempted to flee, accused Sukhwinder Singh allegedly fired a gunshot which hit his left thigh. The assailants then fled from the spot. Thereafter, son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh later succumbed to the injuries in t registered against the accused. Following investigation, the final report has been submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction. 3. been a material change in bail petition on 07.08.2025 complainant, who initially supported the resiled from his ear prosecution before the Court annexed as Annexure P further contended -49981-2025 mplainant namely Kulwinder Singh received a phone call from one Laddu and she immediately left the house on a motorcycle. The complainant and his other son namely Kuldeep Sing @ Babbyu, followed him. Thereafter, near the outskirts of village Uggi, they s individuals. At that time, a swift car (PB09 accused Gurdit Singh @ Guri with Jatinder Singh @ Kohli in the front seat and the Tirath Singh (petitioner herein), Sukhwinder Singh @ Commando and Gurpreet Singh @ Datt seated in the rear. They alighted from the car and Tirath Singh (petitioner herein) alongwith co allegedly began abusing the son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh, while holding datars in their hands. As th attempted to flee, accused Sukhwinder Singh allegedly fired a gunshot which hit his left thigh. The assailants then fled from the spot. Thereafter, son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On these set of allegations, instant FIR registered against the accused. Following investigation, the final report has been submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated tha been a material change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier petition on 07.08.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant, who initially supported the resiled from his earlier version and has not supported the case of the prosecution before the Court below, as evidenced from his statement annexed as Annexure P-4 with the instant petition. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner was 2 mplainant namely Kulwinder Singh received a phone call from one Laddu and she immediately left the house on a motorcycle. The complainant and his other son namely Kuldeep Sing @ Babbyu, followed him. Thereafter, near the outskirts of village Uggi, they saw one Laddu talking to two individuals. At that time, a swift car (PB09-Z-6782) arrived, driven by co accused Gurdit Singh @ Guri with Jatinder Singh @ Kohli in the front seat and the Tirath Singh (petitioner herein), Sukhwinder Singh @ Commando reet Singh @ Datt seated in the rear. They alighted from the car and Tirath Singh (petitioner herein) alongwith co-accused Jatinder Singh allegedly began abusing the son of the complainant namely Kulwinder in their hands. As the son of the complainant attempted to flee, accused Sukhwinder Singh allegedly fired a gunshot which hit his left thigh. The assailants then fled from the spot. Thereafter, son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh later succumbed to the he hospital. On these set of allegations, instant FIR ibid was registered against the accused. Following investigation, the final report has been submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that there has circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant, who initially supported the case of the prosecution, has now lier version and has not supported the case of the , as evidenced from his statement with the instant petition. Learned counsel has that the petitioner was neither present at the spot at the mplainant namely Kulwinder Singh received a phone call from one Laddu and she immediately left the house on a motorcycle. The complainant and his other son namely Kuldeep Sing @ Babbyu, followed him. Thereafter, aw one Laddu talking to two 6782) arrived, driven by co- accused Gurdit Singh @ Guri with Jatinder Singh @ Kohli in the front seat and the Tirath Singh (petitioner herein), Sukhwinder Singh @ Commando reet Singh @ Datt seated in the rear. They alighted from the car accused Jatinder Singh allegedly began abusing the son of the complainant namely Kulwinder e son of the complainant attempted to flee, accused Sukhwinder Singh allegedly fired a gunshot which hit his left thigh. The assailants then fled from the spot. Thereafter, son of the complainant namely Kulwinder Singh later succumbed to the was registered against the accused. Following investigation, the final report has there has circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier Learned counsel has further iterated that the prosecution, has now lier version and has not supported the case of the , as evidenced from his statement with the instant petition. Learned counsel has pot at the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- time of occurrence nor was he in the company of the principal accused. Furthermore, n petitioner counsel has further submi with the main accused, whereas the petitioner has no enmity or criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated. iterated that the impugned FIR contains general and vague assault by all the accused persons using blunt weapons. It is further contended that, as per the post was found on the deceased which has been specifically attributed to co accused Sukhwinder Singh submitted required, thus, bars. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the grant of instant entreated for. 4. notice) while opposing the present petition, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave premeditated criminal Kulwinder Singh @ Kidi. It has been further contended that the petitioner was actively present at the scene of crime and has been specifically named in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further conten pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving the loss of human life. It has been further submitted that the complainant turning hostile cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail as it is a settled principle of la -49981-2025 time of occurrence nor was he in the company of the principal accused. Furthermore, no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to petitioner nor is there any recovery to be effected at his instance. counsel has further submitted that the deceased was already facing litigation with the main accused, whereas the petitioner has no enmity or criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated. iterated that the impugned FIR contains general and vague assault by all the accused persons using blunt weapons. It is further contended that, as per the post-mortem report, only a single gunshot injury was found on the deceased which has been specifically attributed to co accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Commando. submitted that since the custodial interrogation , thus, no useful purpose would be served by sending bars. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the grant of instant entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave premeditated criminal conspiracy culminating in the murder of the deceased Kulwinder Singh @ Kidi. It has been further contended that the petitioner was actively present at the scene of crime and has been specifically named in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further conten pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving the loss of human life. It further submitted that the complainant turning hostile cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail as it is a settled principle of la 3 time of occurrence nor was he in the company of the principal accused. o specific overt act or injury has been attributed to nor is there any recovery to be effected at his instance. Learned deceased was already facing litigation with the main accused, whereas the petitioner has no enmity or criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has further iterated that the impugned FIR contains general and vague allegations of assault by all the accused persons using blunt weapons. It is further mortem report, only a single gunshot injury was found on the deceased which has been specifically attributed to co @ Commando. Learned counsel has further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the grant of instant petition is earned State counsel, (on the strength of advance while opposing the present petition, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave as he formed part of a larger conspiracy culminating in the murder of the deceased Kulwinder Singh @ Kidi. It has been further contended that the petitioner was actively present at the scene of crime and has been specifically named in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further contended that the allegations pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving the loss of human life. It further submitted that the complainant turning hostile, at this stage cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail as it is a settled principle of law that time of occurrence nor was he in the company of the principal accused. o specific overt act or injury has been attributed to the Learned deceased was already facing litigation with the main accused, whereas the petitioner has no enmity or criminal Learned counsel has further allegations of assault by all the accused persons using blunt weapons. It is further mortem report, only a single gunshot injury was found on the deceased which has been specifically attributed to co- further is not him behind the petition is (on the strength of advance while opposing the present petition, has submitted that the a larger conspiracy culminating in the murder of the deceased Kulwinder Singh @ Kidi. It has been further contended that the petitioner was actively present at the scene of crime and has been specifically named in allegations pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving the loss of human life. It at this stage, w that AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- any witness fear or coercion. pending and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not yet been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction contended that the facilitating the crime cannot be ruled out without proper investigation. According to him, in case the arrest bail, witnesses or may Considering the seriousness of the offence, the role of the facilitating the crime and the necessity for custodial interrogation, the dismissal of the instant petition is 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. Court in a titled as RCR(Criminal) 65 -49981-2025 witness(s) may retract his/her statement fear or coercion. According to learned State counsel, the pending and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not yet been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and his role in facilitating the crime cannot be ruled out without proper investigation. According to him, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre arrest bail, there is every likelihood that witnesses or may commit a similar offence and/or Considering the seriousness of the offence, the role of the facilitating the crime and the necessity for custodial interrogation, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. 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(3) 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 & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II Such second/successive anticipat maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non 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 4 statement(s) under extraneous influence According to learned State counsel, the investigation is still pending and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not yet been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. It has been further petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and his role in facilitating the crime cannot be ruled out without proper investigation. petitioner is granted the concession of pre likelihood that the petitioner may influence the similar offence and/or flee from trial. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the role of the petitioner in facilitating the crime and the necessity for custodial interrogation, the for. 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 this Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) 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 cceed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently under extraneous influence, investigation is still pending and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not yet been It has been further petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and his role in facilitating the crime cannot be ruled out without proper investigation. petitioner is granted the concession of pre- may influence the trial. petitioner in facilitating the crime and the necessity for custodial interrogation, the and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this 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 Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of ory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to cceed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier pet proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. second petition filed by the petitioner for grant of earlier plea was rejected circumstance pleaded who before the Court -49981-2025 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 petit 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, t cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) 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.” The present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier pet proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated gs but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. At the outset, it may be noticed that this is the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of earlier plea was rejected by this Court on 07.08.2025 circumstance pleaded before this Court is the statement before the Court below has resiled 5 required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to at 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). 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, t cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated gs but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the At the outset, it may be noticed that this is the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail as this Court on 07.08.2025. The only change of is the statement of the complainant from his previous version and required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to at 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 ion(s). 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) ought to be readily and clearly Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a ition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated gs but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the At the outset, it may be noticed that this is the as his . The only change of of the complainant not AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- supported this Court treated as witnesses accused fo shall be ev Mere hos prosecutio accused, 8. be presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. against the petitioner pertain to a case of homicide which is a serious and heinous offence. The gravity of the offence and its impact on society are relevant considerations while deciding bail. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1976 whereof reads as under: 8.1. Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 26, -49981-2025 d the case of prosecution. Howe t, such a statement at this nasce s determinative. It is well-sett does not ipso facto, efface th for bail. This deposition remains valuated in the course of trial up stility of witness does not o on case, nor does it, by itself, particularly in case of serious of The investigation is still in progress and the final report is yet to presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. against the petitioner pertain to a case of homicide which is a serious and ous offence. The gravity of the offence and its impact on society are relevant considerations while deciding a petition for grant of anticipatory A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1976 AIR Supreme Court 202, whereof reads as under: “8. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The prosecution could have even avoided requesting for permission for cross Section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact that the Court gave to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness. Thus, characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 26, 6 ever, in the considered opinion ent stage of proceedings cannot tled that the testimony of hos he prosecution case or entitle s part of the evidentiary record a pon appreciation of entire eviden obliterate the substratum of f, confer a right of bail upon ffences such as homicide. The investigation is still in progress and the final report is yet to presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to a case of homicide which is a serious and ous offence. The gravity of the offence and its impact on society are a petition for grant of anticipatory A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Bhagwan AIR Supreme Court 202, relevant xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The prosecution could have even avoided requesting for permission for cross-examine the witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact that the Court gave permission to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness. Thus, characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 26, n of t be stile the and nce. the the The investigation is still in progress and the final report is yet to The allegations against the petitioner pertain to a case of homicide which is a serious and ous offence. The gravity of the offence and its impact on society are a petition for grant of anticipatory A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by Bhagwan relevant xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The prosecution could have even examine the witness under permission to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness. Thus, characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 26, AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- has reiterated that even if a witness tur which is credible and corroborated can still be acted upon. The relevant para of the said judgment reads thus: 9. treated as a appreciation of his testimony vis which falls within the bail, this Court cannot undertake presume acquittal merely bec earlier statement. power of the C judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with establ precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a petition, the evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of 10. that no weapon or recovery is attributed to the petitioner does not absolve him, at this stage, especially when his name -49981-2025 has reiterated that even if a witness turns hostile, the portion of evidence which is credible and corroborated can still be acted upon. The relevant para of the said judgment reads thus: “5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his convicti corroborated by other reliable evidence. Thus, the hostility of PW-1 at this stage cannot, by itself, be treated as a sufficient ground for the appreciation of his testimony vis-à-vis other prosecution evidence is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain bail, this Court cannot undertake a de presume acquittal merely because a material witness has resiled from his earlier statement. The grant of anticipatory of the Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with establ precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a , the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory Furthermore, the contention of learned counsel for the p that no weapon or recovery is attributed to the petitioner does not absolve at this stage, especially when his name 7 ns hostile, the portion of evidence which is credible and corroborated can still be acted upon. The relevant para xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The relevant para xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It is settled law that of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” 1 at this stage cannot, by itself, be grant of anticipatory bail. The vis other prosecution evidence is a matter of the trial Court. At the stage of etailed evaluation of evidence or material witness has resiled from his anticipatory bail falls within the discretionary ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering an anticipatory bail ourt must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does anticipatory bail at this stage. of learned counsel for the petitioner that no weapon or recovery is attributed to the petitioner does not absolve at this stage, especially when his name is specifically mentioned in the ns hostile, the portion of evidence which is credible and corroborated can still be acted upon. The relevant para It is settled law that of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and on upon his testimony if 1 at this stage cannot, by itself, be The vis other prosecution evidence is a matter of the trial Court. At the stage of of evidence or material witness has resiled from his he discretionary ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a ished legal bail prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged sentence upon conviction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does etitioner that no weapon or recovery is attributed to the petitioner does not absolve in the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- FIR. Whether not is a matter empted at the stage of anticipatory bail. tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses also cannot be ruled out if he is released on anticipatory bail at this pr relief of anticipatory bail when the allegations involve the loss of 11. craves attention of preferred by the petitioner on merits. petition (for previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on except for the ground that prosecution. this nascent stage of the proceedings purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary value or reliability of the statement of the complainant is a matter to be tested duri trial and not at the stage of consideration of the anticipatory bail. The that the FIR consideration for grant of regular bail but not the record would reveal learned Court below on 02.04.2025 whereby his application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on merits. -49981-2025 FIR. Whether the petitioner shared a common object with the co not is a matter that requires deeper investigation, which cannot be pre empted at the stage of anticipatory bail. tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses also cannot be ruled out if he is released on anticipatory bail at this pr of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly when the allegations involve the loss of a There is yet another determinative craves attention of this Court. Indubitably, the first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court on . Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on except for the ground that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the considered opinion o nascent stage of the proceedings, cannot be treated as purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary value or reliability of the statement of the complainant is a matter to be tested duri trial and not at the stage of consideration of the anticipatory bail. The FIR-complainant has turned hostile may consideration for grant of regular bail but not the record would reveal that the petitioner has initially approached the learned Court below on 02.04.2025 whereby his application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on merits. 8 shared a common object with the co-accused or that requires deeper investigation, which cannot be pre empted at the stage of anticipatory bail. The possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses also cannot be ruled out if he is released on anticipatory bail at this premature stage. The discretionary is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly human life. determinative aspect of the matter which he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) dismissed by this Court on 07.08.202 the petitioner has filed the instant petition i.e. second grant of anticipatory bail) and has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on 07.08.202 the complainant has not supported the case of the of this Court, such a contention, at cannot be treated as conclusive for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary value or reliability of the statement of the complainant is a matter to be tested during the course of trial and not at the stage of consideration of the anticipatory bail. The f complainant has turned hostile may constitute a ground worth consideration for grant of regular bail but not anticipatory bail. Furthermore, that the petitioner has initially approached the learned Court below on 02.04.2025 whereby his application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on merits. Till now, the petitioner has accused or that requires deeper investigation, which cannot be pre- The possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses also cannot be ruled out if emature stage. The discretionary is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly aspect of the matter which he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) .2025 second has reiterated the grounds .2025) the complainant has not supported the case of the contention, at conclusive for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary value or reliability of ng the course of fact a ground worth anticipatory bail. Furthermore, that the petitioner has initially approached the learned Court below on 02.04.2025 whereby his application for grant of the petitioner has AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- willfully evaded his arrest and failed to submit Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prolonged evasion of the petitioner weighs heavily against the exerc anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the dismissed on this Court whereby his plea for anticipatory and thereafter, than 05 months i.e. on 04.09.2025 evaded the process of law for over in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair. However; if the petit convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating the lawful proceedings/investigation, it process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individu 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 reason(s) is certa sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of more than part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of th -49981-2025 willfully evaded his arrest and failed to submit Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prolonged evasion of the petitioner weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the first petition dismissed on 02.04.2025 by the Court below, thereafter, he has approached this Court whereby his plea for anticipatory thereafter, the instant petition has been preferred after a gap of more 05 months i.e. on 04.09.2025. It is evident that the petitioner has evaded the process of law for over 05 months in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair. However; if the petitioner-accused choos convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating the lawful proceedings/investigation, it process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individu 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-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 more than part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of th 9 willfully evaded his arrest and failed to submit himself to the process of law Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prolonged evasion of the petitioner weighs heavily against ise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing first petition of the petitioner was 02.04.2025 by the Court below, thereafter, he has approached this Court whereby his plea for anticipatory bail was rejected on 07.08.2025 the instant petition has been preferred after a gap of more . It is evident that the petitioner has 05 months. The conduct of the petition in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this second petition. Process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and accused choose to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating the lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount 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 devolution in the process of justice. Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and arrest bail, in absence of convincing inly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of more than 05 months part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of th s of law. Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prolonged evasion of the petitioner weighs heavily against ise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing was 02.04.2025 by the Court below, thereafter, he has approached bail was rejected on 07.08.2025 the instant petition has been preferred after a gap of more . It is evident that the petitioner has . The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause petition. Process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating to an abuse of the al 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 arrest bail, in absence of convincing inly not an act/behaviour which calls for 05 months on contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, dis grant of anticipatory bail. 12. (i) at this stage. (ii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the being influenced with this ord (iii) September 08 Ajay -49981-2025 nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, dis grant of anticipatory bail. In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed ge. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove 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 stand disposed of. September 08, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, dis-entitles him for In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed 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 entitles him for The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove the investigating agency without AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document