CRM-M-33695-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33695-2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Manjit Singh and another ...Pe##oners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for the pe##oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of this pe##on filed under Sec#on 482 of BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Sec#on 438 Cr.P.C), the two pe##oners pray for grant of an#cipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 19.09.2025, under Sec#ons 420, 406, 427, 120-B of IPC (now Sec#ons 318(4), 316, 324 and 61 of BNS, 2023), registered at Police Sta#on NRI Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. 2. At the very outset, it deserves to be no#ced that the present pe##on is the second pe##on seeking the same relief of an#cipatory bail. The earlier pe##on bearing CRM-M-57941-2025 was considered and dismissed on merits by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide a detailed order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-3). When queried, learned counsel for the pe##oners is unable to point out any substan#al change in circumstances occurring subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier pe##on, except to submit that the par#es have allegedly entered into a compromise. 3. The aforesaid submission does not persuade this Court to entertain the present successive pe##on. It is well se?led that a second or successive pe##on for an#cipatory bail is maintainable only upon the existence of a material change in circumstances a@er rejec#on of the earlier pe##on. Mere repe##on of grounds already considered or reliance upon YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33695-2026 [2] circumstances which do not have a direct bearing on the necessity of custodial interroga#on cannot furnish a fresh cause of ac#on for seeking the same relief. 4. In the present case, even the alleged compromise does not advance the case of the pe##oners. The record reveals that despite dismissal of the earlier pe##on, the pe##oners have not joined inves#ga#on and have failed to cooperate with the Inves#ga#ng Agency. A person who remains unavailable for inves#ga#on and avoids compliance with lawful direc#ons cannot seek the discre#onary relief of an#cipatory bail merely on the basis of a subsequent compromise. Such conduct militates against the very requirement of coopera#on with the inves#ga#on, which is one of the relevant considera#ons governing the grant of pre-arrest bail. 5. Moreover, the alleged compromise by itself cannot be treated as a change in circumstance sufficient to reopen an issue already adjudicated upon by a co-ordinate Bench, par#cularly when the pe##oners have con#nued to remain non-coopera#ve in the inves#ga#on. Entertaining such successive pe##ons in the absence of any genuine change in circumstances would amount to permiCng repeated a?empts to secure the same relief, which is impermissible in law. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to take a view different from the one already taken by the co-ordinate Bench while declining an#cipatory bail to the pe##oners. The present pe##on is, therefore, 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