CRM-M-33806-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33806-2026 Date of decision: 12.06.2026 Love Gill ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Amrish Singh, Advocate for the pe oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present second pe on filed under Sec on 482 of the Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe oner seeks the concession of an cipatory bail in case FIR No.206 dated 20.12.2025 registered under Sec ons 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 191(3) and 190 of the Bhara ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Sta on Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the pe oner and perused the paper-book. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that an earlier pe on seeking iden cal relief, bearing CRM-M-32837-2026, was filed by the pe oner and the same came to be dismissed by this Court on 05.06.2026 vide order Annexure P-4. The said order was passed a?er considering the submissions raised on behalf of the pe oner and the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the pe oner submits that the pe oner has been falsely implicated in the present case and was not present at the spot at the me of occurrence. 5. However, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid conten on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33806-2026 [2] The plea regarding false implica on and absence of the pe oner from the place of occurrence is not a new ground. The same was available to the pe oner and stood considered at the me of dismissal of the earlier an cipatory bail pe on. A second or successive pe on for an cipatory bail is maintainable only when there is a substan al change in circumstances or emergence of new facts having a material bearing on the claim for pre-arrest bail. 6. In the present case, learned counsel has been unable to point out any subsequent event, fresh circumstance or change in the factual or legal posi on a?er dismissal of the earlier pe on on 05.06.2026. The present pe on is founded on the very same grounds which were available and could be urged at the me of considera on of the earlier pe on. 7. It is well seBled that successive bail pe ons cannot be entertained merely by re-agita ng grounds already considered and rejected by the Court. PermiCng such a course would amount to seeking review of an earlier order under the guise of a fresh pe on, which is impermissible in law. 8. In the absence of any change in circumstances warran ng a fresh considera on of the maBer, no ground is made out for grant of an cipatory bail. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the present pe on, the same is hereby dismissed. 12.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document