CRM-M-30340-2026(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 102 CRM-M-30340-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 KULWINDER SINGH ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. Sukhveer S.Killianwali, Advocate the petitioner. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-26016-2026 This application has been filed under Section 582 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C) for amendment of the headnote and prayer of the main petition to incorporate the subsequently added offence. For the reasons stated in the application and the same is allowed and Sections465,467,471 IPC (Corresponding to Sections 336, 338 and 340 of BNS ) are ordered to be added in the head note as well as prayer clause of the main case. Main case: 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.259 dated 19.12.2023 under Sections 177, 199, 200, 420, 120-B IPC (Sections 212,236,237,318(4), 61(1) of BNS) registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30340-2026(O&M) 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Sukhwinder Singh had sold land measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas reflected in the jamabandi of the year 2005-2006, vide registered sale deed on 19.12.2007 to the complainant. At that time, an affidavit of co-sharer Nirmal Kaur was also given that she had no objection if the said land was sold by co-accused, Sukhwinder Singh to the complainant. Out of the said land, accused party had sold 4 kanals 5 marlas on 11.03.2013. Despite affidavit of Nirmal Kaur, the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, had got transferred the award money in the account of the petitioner-Kulwinder Singh. On 06.04.2021, District Revenue Officer, Jalandhar passed an award for acquisition of land. 215 marlas of land of the complainant was acquired by the Government, but he was given award money of only 52 marlas of land and the remaining amount had been claimed by the petitioner alongwith his co-accused by giving false affidavit that they were owners of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the bank accounts of all the accused, including that of the petitioner, have already been frozen and, therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner utilising or withdrawing the compensation amount until the dispute is finally adjudicated by the competent Court. It is further submitted that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025. It is further pointed out that, during the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC have also been added. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30340-2026(O&M) 3 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. P.S. Pandher, learned AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, and Mr. R.S. Randhawa, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant. They vehemently oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that, despite not being physically present in India, the petitioner allegedly got an NRI bank account opened by using forged documents and thereafter siphoned off the compensation amount to a bank account abroad. 6. Faced with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any subsequent change in circumstances or any fresh ground warranting reconsideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail. Rather, the present petition appears to be an attempt to seek a review of the earlier order passed by this Court, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any fresh or compelling reason to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner or to review the earlier order passed by this Court, as no new ground has been made out warranting such reconsideration. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh