CRM-M-33095-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33095-2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Rakesh Kumar ...Pe$$oner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate for the pe$$oner. Mr. Anuj Garg, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Shubhkarman Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of this pe$$on filed under Sec$on 482 of BNSS (corresponding to Sec$on 438 of Cr.P.C) pe$$oner prays for grant of an$cipatory bail in case FIR No.0019 dated 21.01.2026, under Sec$ons 191(3), 190, 140(3), 115 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Sta$on Ambala City, District Ambala. 2. At the very outset, it deserves to be no$ced that the present is a second pe$$on seeking the concession of an$cipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR. The earlier pe$$on bearing CRM-M-20199-2026 was dismissed as withdrawn qua the present pe$$oner on 21.05.2026, though co-accused Harjit Singh was granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. 3. When confronted, learned counsel for the pe$$oner has not been able to point out any material change in circumstances arising a@er withdrawal of the earlier pe$$on, which may jus$fy reconsidera$on of the prayer for an$cipatory bail. Rather, the present pe$$on has been filed within a short span of merely twelve days during the vaca$on period, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33095-2026 [2] without there being any subsequent event having a bearing on the merits of the maAer. 4. It is by now well seAled that a successive pe$$on for an$cipatory bail is maintainable only when there is a substan$al change in circumstances a@er rejec$on or withdrawal of the earlier pe$$on. In the absence of any such change, a second pe$$on seeking the same relief would amount to re-agita$ng an issue already considered by the Court and would be contrary to the principles governing judicial discipline and finality of orders. 5. This Court, in CRM-M-9107-2022 $tled Bhunesh vs. State of Haryana, decided on 04.03.2022, had no$ced the growing tendency amongst li$gants of arguing an an$cipatory bail pe$$on at length, and upon sensing that the Court is not inclined to grant relief, seeking permission to withdraw the pe$$on so as to avoid an adverse order, followed by filing a fresh pe$$on within a short period seeking the same relief. Similar observa$ons were reiterated in CRM-M-24400-2022 $tled Ashok vs. State of Haryana, decided on 31.05.2022. Such a prac$ce, if permiAed, would enable a li$gant to circumvent the consequences of the earlier proceedings and repeatedly invoke the jurisdic$on of the Court without any fresh cause of ac$on. 6. The facts of the present case squarely aAract the aforesaid principle. The pe$$oner has failed to disclose any circumstance which has changed a@er withdrawal of the earlier pe$$on on 21.05.2026. The present pe$$on is, therefore, nothing but a second aAempt to secure the same relief which had already been pursued before this Court. Entertaining such a pe$$on in the absence of any changed circumstances would amount to permiCng abuse of the process of law. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33095-2026 [3] 7. Finding no jus$fica$on to entertain the present successive pe$$on, the same is accordingly dismissed. 17.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document