CRM-M-37850-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CRM-M-37850-2026 Decided on:14.07.2026 Sanjeev Parashar and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. R.K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Nehra, Advocate Ms. Sofia Gupta, Advocate Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. SANJAY VASHISTH , J. 1. Present is the third petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 17 dated 30.01.2026, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Central Faridabad, District Faridabad. 2. After the dismissal of his application for anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court on 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-4), petitioner approached this Court by filing CRM-M-29389-2026 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The said petition was RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2026 2 dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj J.) vide a detailed and reasoned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-5). While taking note of the antecedents and conduct of the petitioner, the Coordinate Bench categorically held that: "The petitioners do not deserve the indulgence of this Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed." 3. Undeterred by the aforesaid order, petitioner, after engaging a different counsel, namely, Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate, once again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a second petition for anticipatory bail, being CRM-M-31821-2026. Said petition also came to be considered by the same Coordinate Bench and was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), observing as under: “ Present: Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Chhavi Sharma, DAG, Haryana (through VC) Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.17 dated 30.01.2026 registered under Sections 420, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Central Faridabad, District Faridabad. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there has been non-disclosure of material facts in the present case including dismissal of the earlier petition filed by the petitioners bearing CRM-M-29389-2026 and thus seeks withdrawal of the present petition. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2026 3 29.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE” 4. Present petition constitutes the third attempt by the petitioner to seek the concession of anticipatory bail, although with due disclosure of the earlier two petitions. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioners have now changed their stand and have decided to repay ₹ the amount of 1 crore to the complainant, on account of which the present FIR came to be registered. It is further submitted that a sum of ₹22 lakhs has already been transferred to the complainant through RTGS ₹ and that a demand draft for a further sum of 53 lakhs has been prepared and is available in Court to be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, who is also present in Court on his own. It is further submitted that the remaining amount shall also be paid within a reasonable period. 6. This Court has carefully perused the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench whereby the first petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The said order is elaborate, reasoned, and records detailed findings with regard to the antecedents and conduct of the petitioner. Those findings, by themselves, furnish sufficient justification for this Court not to re-examine the very same prayer in the present proceedings. Furthermore, while dealing with the second anticipatory bail petition, the Coordinate Bench also took note of the conduct of the petitioner. RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2026 4 It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that once the criminal law has been set in motion, the complainant or any private party cannot assume the role of the prosecuting agency or dictate the course of the criminal proceedings according to his own convenience or understanding. The grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is to be determined on settled legal principles and not on the basis of private negotiations or offers made by the accused after registration of the FIR. 7. At this stage, Mr. Rahul Deswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that no settlement has been arrived at ₹ between the parties. He further states that the amount of 22 lakhs relied upon by the petitioner had, in fact, already been received by the complainant even prior to the dismissal of the first anticipatory bail petition by the Coordinate Bench. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the proposal now put forth by the petitioner to make further payment does not give rise to any fresh cause of action nor does it constitute such a substantial change in circumstances as would justify the entertainment of a third petition seeking the very same relief. If the petitioner seeks to rely upon any subsequent event or additional ground which was either unavailable or not urged earlier, the appropriate remedy lies before the superior forum. Such subsequent developments cannot be invoked to invite this Court to reconsider or virtually review the findings already recorded by the Coordinate Bench, which is impermissible in law. RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2026 5 Consequently, present petition, being successive petition seeking identical relief without any material change in circumstances, is held to be not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document