CRM-M No.30413 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CRM-M No.30413 of 2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Dhiraj Kumar Yadav @ Dheeraj ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Mohit Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the victim. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.192 dated 21.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 109, 351(3), 324(4), 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana. The previous petition as filed MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.30413 of 2026 -2- by him bearing CRM-M-72397-2025 had been dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2026 by this Court by making the following observations:- “6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have handed over a pistol to the co-accused who had fired shots with the same upon the victim Mohd. Asgar thereby causing one firearm injury to him. Though the petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-2 a photocopy of a photograph/screenshot taken from some CCTV footage showing him to be present in some shop at 9:34 AM as on 21.10.2025, however, the authenticity of this photograph cannot be ascertained at this stage. The allegations levelled in the FIR make out a prima facie case qua active involvement of the petitioner in the subject crime. The allegations against him are serious in nature. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.” MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.30413 of 2026 -3- 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of his previous petition, there has been change in the circumstances as the victim himself has sworn an affidavit now to the effect that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is maintainable and the petitioner deserves to be extended benefit of pre arrest bail. 3. Learned counsel for the victim has raised no objection to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also affirmed the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the victim and affidavit Annexure P-4 has been sworn by him. 4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable being a successive petition for grant of pre arrest bail. The previous petition had been filed by passing a detailed order by this Court. There is no substantial or drastic change in the circumstances. No consideration can be given to the affidavit sworn by the victim at this stage. Even otherwise, the subject offence under Section 109 of BNS cannot be stated to be an offence against the victim only but is an offence against public as well. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. As already observed, the previous petition as filed by the MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.30413 of 2026 -4- petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order. The only change in the circumstances which the petitioner has tried to point out is swearing of an affidavit by the victim that the petitioner was not present at the spot and that a compromise has been effected between them voluntarily. In the considered opinion of this Court, simply on account of the fact that the victim had sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner, the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This can neither be stated to be a drastic change in the circumstances nor the same even otherwise can be taken to be a sufficient ground at this stage to extend benefit of pre arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, finding no reasonable ground to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 21.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh