CRM-M- IN 176 Bhinder Sin Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. registered a of BNS an District Ba bail. First p disposed of observation 2. noticed her Talwandi S -11449-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA der Singh @ Bhindi Versus of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advo Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, an accused in case tered against him under Sections 308( NS and Section 25 of Arms Act, ict Bathinda has filed the present 2nd First petition bearing CRM-M-4639 sed of by this Court vide order dated rvations:- “After arguing the matte for the petitioner wishes to wit Dismissed as withdrawn Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- “Nikhil Garg, son of Bhushan ndi Sabo, District Bathinda, running 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-11449-2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. , Advocate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. in case FIR No. 189 dated 10.11.202 308(2), 308(4), 308(5), 351(2), 61(2 Act, at Police Station Talwandi Sab nd petition for grant of anticipator 4639-2025, seeking similar relief, wa r dated 28.01.2025, with the followin atter at some length, learned couns o withdraw the present petition. rawn.” ging from the documents on record b shan Kumar, resident of Ward No. 0 ning Tiles Shop in the name of Nikh .2026 11.2024 ), 61(2) i Sabo, cipatory ief, was llowing ounsel cord be o. 08 Nikhil GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Enterprises motion by Sheru, son With the pa that he is w arises, any on 05.11.2 asked him petitioner) suspecting Dilsher. H notes for s mobile pho over the ph introduced like a broth Dilsher too while later the amount when he ex @ Manna Dilsher to g revolver an after repea days to ar complainan -11449-2026 -2 rises at Rori Raod, in front of Bank by filing a complaint pointing th son of Gurmel Singh used to frequ he passage of time, they became fri is well connected with Manpreet Si any work can be got done through 11.2024, Dilsher called him (c) on him to come alone at the house of ner), which was situated just beh ting anything, he went to Bhindi’s . He noticed that Dilsher was hold for sometime, Dilsher @ Sheru m phone, spoke to a person, who at e phone to him (c) asking him to ced himself as Manpreet Singh @ M brother and that henceforth he (c) n r took the phone from him (c) and later, Dilsher told him that Manna ount has to be arranged immediatel e expressed his reluctance, Dilsher nna can harm anybody even from in r to grant sometime to him to think o er and threatened that Manna does n epeated requests made by him (c), o arrange for money. Even dur inant, Dilsher kept on repeatedly ca 2- ank of Baroda, set the criminal law g therein that one Dilsher Singh requently visit his shop to buy good e friends. Dilsher used to often bra et Singh @ Manna and that if need s ugh Manpreet Singh. At about 7 P ) on his mobile No. 7307870000 an of Bhinder Singh @ Bhindi (prese behind his (c’s) house. Witho di’s house, where he met Bhindi an holding a revolver. After exchangin u made a ‘whatsapp’ call from h o attended the call and then hande to talk to Manna Bhai. The perso @ Manna and told him (c) that he (c) need not fear anyone. Thereafte and started talking to Manna. Litt na Bhai needs Rs.1,50,000/- and th iately. He (c) was quite shocked an lsher announced that Manpreet Sing inside the jail. He (c) pleaded wi ink over, when Dilsher brandished oes not give time to anyone. Anyhow (c), he was allowed concession of uring this period, further as p ly calling him on his phone. Fearin law in @ goods. brag eed so 7 PM 0 and resent ithout and nging m his anded erson t he is eafter, Little d that d and Singh d with his yhow, n of 2 s per earing GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- for his life Rs.50,000/ Car bearin money, Dil Rs.1,50,000 left the spo for grant o money is n consequenc authorities also to init complaint, u/s 308(2), at Police S moved an dismissed b order dated 2025 before seeking rel the 2nd Peti 3. was not in implicated -11449-2026 -3 s life, at about 8 PM on 8.11.20 000/- to Dilsher, who had arrived i earing registration No. PB-03-BG , Dilsher threatened him (c) to be re 0,000/-. He thought it proper to kee spot. After few days, when Dilshe ant of sometime, when Dilsher ope is not arranged and delivered, he uences. Primarily with this backdrop, ities to catch hold of all those, wh initiate appropriate proceedings ag int, a formal case vide FIR No. 189 (2), 308(4), 308(5), 351(2), 61(2) of ce Station Talwandi Sabo, District B Apprehending his arrest, peti d an application for grant of pre-arr issed by the then learned Additional r dated 22.11.2024. Aggrieved of whic before this Court, which as noted abov Since the lodging of the FIR ing relief of anticipatory bail, petition Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitio not in any which way involved in icated in the present case only with 3- 1.2024, he reluctantly handed ov ed in his white coloured Honda Ci BG-3764. Even after collecting th e ready with the remaining amount keep quite. Dilsher took money an ilsher called up, he (c) again pleade openly announced that in case th , he should be prepared to face di rop, complainant requested the polic , who are involved in the incident gs against them. On the basis of sa 189 dated 10.11.2024 was registere 2) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Ac ict Bathinda. t, petitioner Bhinder Singh @ Bhin arrest bail. The same came to b itional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vid f which, petitioner filed CRM-M-4639 d above, was dismissed as withdrawn. e FIR and dismissal of the Ist petitio etitioner has not been arrested. This t bail. petitioner contends that petitioner, wh ved in the incident, has been false with a view to harass him as also over a City ng the unt of ey and leaded se the e dire police ent as f said stered s Act, Bhindi e to be da, vide 4639- drawn. petition This is , who falsely also to GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- extract illeg complainan two accuse @ Manna trial Court oath, comp expressed h of the sai interrogatio to join the i petitioner i affidavit da want to pro contends th presence of him. Praye 4. State couns Dilsher @ @ Bhindi was made who fearle complainan would have upon comp -11449-2026 -4 t illegal monetary benefit from him. lainant, as per learned counsel, is app accused named in the FIR, namely, D anna, who were arrested and faced tr Court vide judgment dated 3.10.2025 complainant himself did not suppo essed his inability to remember anythi e said development, learned coun rogation of petitioner is though not req in the investigation as and when called The second line of argumen ioner is that complainant on his own f avit dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) to proceed further against the petition nds that in the light of the parties havi nce of petitioner is not required, for Prayer for allowing the petition has be Per contra, while opposing the counsel contends that petitioner was er @ Sheru asked petitioner to meet h hindi (present petitioner). It was the made to talk to Manpreet Singh @ M fearlessly demanded Rs.1,50,000/ lainant, a businessman that in case if d have to face dire consequences. By complainant, he was asked to depo 4- him. Falsity of the case set up by th is apparent from the fact that the oth Dilsher Singh and Manpreet Sing d trial, were finally acquitted by th 0.2025. In his statement recorded o support the case of prosecution an anything about the incident. In the li counsel contends that the custodi not required, but even then he is willin called for by the IO. gument raised by learned counsel fo own free will and accord, executed a 3) deposing therein that he does n etitioner. Learned counsel vehement es having amicably resolved the disput , for nothing is to be recovered fro has been made. ing the request for grant of bail, learne er was named in the FIR. Co-accuse meet him at the house of Bhinder Sing as there, that at gunpoint complaina h @ Manna, who was then in jail an ,000/-. It was also made clear case if the demands are not met, he ( By exerting pressure/issuing threa o deposit/hand over the entire amou p by the he other et Singh d by the rded on ion and the light ustodial willing nsel for uted an does not emently dispute, ed from learned accused er Singh plainant jail and clear to t, he (c) threats amount GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- within two security of Dilsher at a other accus @ Manna, Court vide entire case pointed ou being invol of the FIR 28.1.2025, 15.11.2025 circumstanc part of the the petition 5. documents 6. in the light petition fo petitioner d 7. be filed onl the dismiss U.P. 1978 -11449-2026 -5 in two days. Terrified of these thr rity of his family members, complain er at about 8 PM on 08.11.2024. Learned State counsel further accused named in the FIR, namely, D anna, who were arrested and faced de judgment dated 3.10.2025, wo e case of complainant with suspicio ted out that petitioner is a person wi involved in four other criminal cases e FIR and withdrawal of the Ist b 2025, petitioner has been evading ar .2025 also when appreciated in the mstances brought on record does not a of the complainant, thus deserves not etition has been prayed for. Heard learned counsel for th ments on record. Questions that need adjudicati e light of facts and circumstances of ion for grant of anticipatory bail is ioner deserves the relief sought for. It is settled that second petition led only if there has been substantial c ismissal of the first one. In Babu Si 978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the 5- se threats, fearing for his safety an plainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- urther contends that simply because tw ely, Dilsher Singh and Manpreet Sing faced trial, were acquitted by the tri would not be a ground to view th spicion. That apart, it has also bee on with questionable past antecedent l cases of like nature. Since the lodgin Ist bail petition from this Court o ing arrest. The settlement deed date n the light of the facts and connectin s not appear to be a voluntary act on th s not to be taken note of. Dismissal o for the parties and have perused th dication, at this stage, are as to wheth ces of case brought on record, secon bail is maintainable. If yes, wheth etition for grant of anticipatory bail ca ntial change in the circumstances sinc u Singh and others vs. The State o , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has he ety and - to use two et Singh the trial iew the so been cedents; lodging ourt on d dated necting t on the issal of sed the whether second whether bail can es since tate of has held GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- as under:- 2080, this C -11449-2026 -6 - “…………………But an order does not necessarily preciud giving more materials, furth considerations. While we s circumstance, we cannot acce barred from second considera direction is not a conclus reconsideration is not over tu view, we entertain the applica and con.” In Manjinder Kaur vs. State , this Court has held as follows:- “2. The question, therefore, and answered is "whether application under Section 438 first one filed by the petitioner xxxx xxxx 12. We have already held th anticipatory bail application w such an application has been by passing a speaking order. application, it can be said th under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subsequent bail application w on the ground that some ne 6- rder refusing an application for ba ciude another, on a later occasio further, developments and differe e surely must set store by th accede to the faint plea that we ar ideration' at a later stage. An interi clusive adjudication, and update r turning an earlier negation. In th plication and evaluate the merits pr tate of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Hera re, which requires to be considere ether a second anticipatory ba 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when th oner has been withdrawn?" xxxx ld that second/subsequent/successiv ion would not be maintainable whe een dismissed by the Court on meri der. Further qua the anticipatory ba id that once a first bail applicati .C. stand withdrawn, a second o on would not be maintainable mere e new inconsequential and cosmet r bail asion, fferent y this e are, nterim dated In this its pro erald idered bail en the essive where merits ry bail cation nd or erely smetic GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2021(1) RC 65, a coord of Hon’ble follows:- -11449-2026 -7 change in circumstances developments such as arrest bail granted to co-accused, di details, new documents or illn not be maintainable on a plea earlier occasion failed to co material on record or that accused was not taken, agitate However, the second/subseque 438 Cr.P.C. would be mainta material and substantive ch circumstances of the case due In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. Th ) RCR Criminal) 843, the Hon’ble S “……………..The specious rea cannot be invoked for success once it is rejected by a speakin Judge." In Bhisham Singh v. State o coordinate Bench of this Court while on’ble Supreme Court and of this Cou “11. As an epilogue to the principles emerge: I. Second/successive ant under 438 of Cr.P.C., 7- es has/have come about, furth est of co-accused or main accused o , different considerations, some mo r illness of the accused. It would als plea or ground that the Court on th o consider any particular aspect o hat any point then available to th itated or pressed before the Court. equent bail application under Sectio intainable only if there is substanti e change in the fact situation an due to subsequent events or in law." s. The State of Tamil Nadu & anr n’ble Supreme Court has held as under s reasons of change in circumstanc cessive anticipatory bail application eaking order and that too by the sam te of Haryana, 2024 (3) RCR (Crl while discussing the various judgmen is Court, on the subject in issue, held a the above rumination, the followin anticipatory bail petition(s) file .C., 1973 is maintainable in law urther sed or more d also on the ect or to the ection tantial n and aw." anr., under: tances ations, same (Crl.) dgments , held as owing filed law & GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -11449-2026 -8 hence such petition oug ground of maintainabili II. Such second/successive whether earlier p withdrawn/dismissed as prosecution or earlier p III. For the second/successi succeed, the pet essentially/pertinently change in circumstan superficial or ostensible IV. No exhaustive guideline what would consti circumstances as every circumstance. Accordin judicial wisdom and dis such second/successive V. In case a Court choo anticipatory bail petitio are pertinently required plea despite such a anticipatory petition (s) Court having successful second/successive petit clearly decipherable fro 8- ought not to be rejected solely on th ability thereof. ssive anticipatory bail petition(s) petition was dismissed a d as not pressed/dismissed for no ier petition was dismissed on merits. cessive anticipatory bail petition(s) petitioner/applicant shall b tly required to show substanti stances and showing of a me sible change would not suffice. elines can possible be laid down as nstitute substantial change very case has its own unique fact rdingly, this issue is best left to th d discretion of the Court dealing wi sive anticipatory bail petition (s). chooses to grant second/successiv etition (s), cogent and lucid reason ired to be recorded for granting suc a plea being second/successiv n (s). In other words, the cause for sfully countenanced/entertained suc petition(s) ought to be readily an e from the said order passed. on the (s) is as r non- rits. n(s) to be tantial mere as to e in facts/ to the g with essive asons g such essive for a d such y and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Supreme C Live Law ( -11449-2026 -9 VI. Once a plea for anticip withdrawn/dismissed as prosecution or dismisse second/successive antic entertained by a Session It would also be appropriate to eme Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. aw (SC) 870, wherein it was held as “It may be true, a appearing for Respond already been filed. It w part that the Investig Respondent No.1 for purpose of further inves Be that as it may Respondent No.1 is interrogation, we are sa not to have granted di bail. We are dealing w complainant (appellant Court praying that the High Court to the accus in other words, the com wrongly exercised i anticipatory bail to the like POCSO and, theref Court granting anticipa 9- ticipatory bail has been dismissed a d as not pressed/dismissed for no issed on merits by the High Court, n anticipatory bail petition (s) shall b ssions Court.” riate to refer to the judgment of Hon'b Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 202 eld as follows:- ue, as pointed out by learned couns pondent No.1, that charge-sheet ha It will be unfair to presume on ou estigating Officer does not requi for custodial interrogation for th nvestigation. may, even assuming it a case whe is not required for custodi re satisfied that the High Court oug d discretionary relief of anticipato ng with a matter wherein the origin llant herein) has come before th the anticipatory bail granted by th ccused should be cancelled. To put complainant says that the High Cou d its discretion while grantin the accused in a very serious crim erefore, the order passed by the Hig cipatory bail to the accused should b sed as r non- urt, no all be Hon'ble . 2022 ounsel et has n our equire r the where todial ought patory iginal e this by the put it Court anting crime High uld be GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. to the fact earning his -11449-2026 -10 quashed and set aside. I we have noticed one co that no custodial interro anticipatory bail may b serious misconception o interrogation is made o alone would be a good Custodial interrogation aspects to be considere deciding an application may be many cases in of the accused may no mean that the prima should be ignored or granted anticipatory ba that the court hearing should consider is the p accused. Thereafter, the looked into along with Custodial interrogation decline custodial int custodial interrogation itself, cannot be a groun Keeping the above settled prin e facts of the case in hand. Compla his livelihood by selling tiles from 10- ide. In many anticipatory bail matter e common argument being canvasse terrogation is required and, therefor ay be granted. There appears to be ion of law that if no case for custodi de out by the prosecution, then th ood ground to grant anticipatory ba ation can be one of the releva dered along with other grounds whi ation seeking anticipatory bail. The s in which the custodial interrogatio y not be required, but that does n ima facie case against the accuse or overlooked and he should b ry bail. The first and foremost thin ring an anticipatory bail applicatio he prima facie case put up against th r, the nature of the offence should b with the severity of the punishmen ation can be one of the grounds interrogation. However, even tion is not required or necessitated, b round to grant anticipatory bail.” ed principles in mind, let us revert bac omplainant is a businessman, who from a shop situated in front of Ban atters, vassed refore, o be a todial n that y bail. levant while There gation es not used ld be thing cation nst the uld be hment. nds to en if ted, by ert back who is Bank GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of Baroda set into mo FIR have FIR. Comp house of th visited the noticed tha was made taken by pe not to be apparent th believe tha powerful cause harm family me sought time and circum dismissed 22.11.2024 was dismis para 1 of th is the Com complainan produced a petitioner, -11449-2026 -11 aroda, Rori Road, Talwandi Sabo. On motion. Factual aspects of the case been noticed in para 2 of the or Complainant was directed by co-acc the petitioner, situated just behind the house of the petitioner, he met that Dilsher was armed with a rev made to talk to Manpreet Singh @ Ma petitioner that he was unaware of be taken note of. From the facts that petitioner also extended threa that Manpreet Singh @ Manna that he can harm anybody even harm to him (c) as also his family. members, complainant handed time to deliver the remaining amou circumstances brought on record, lea issed the application for grant of .2024. The Ist petition seeking simi dismissed as withdrawn on 28.1.2025, this order. The only ‘changed circumstan ompromise Deed said to have lainant party. The Court has exam uced along with the petition. Material ioner, during the interregnum between 11- On his statement, criminal law wa case leading to the registration of order. Petitioner was named in accused Dilsher to meet him at behind his (c) house. When complaina met both petitioner and Dilsher an revolver. It was then that petition Manna, who demanded money. Ple of the intentions of Dilsher deserv facts brought on record it is furth threats to complainant and made hi Bhai (then lodged in jail), is even while being in custody and ca mily. Fearing for his life and that of over Rs.50,000/- to Dilsher an amount. Taking note of the entire fac learned Additional Sessions Judg of pre-arrest bail vide order date similar relief, filed before this Cou .2025, with the observations as noted stance’ so assigned by the petition have been effected between him an examined the purported compromis aterial on record and the conduct of th etween the dismissal of the petition an was the the the plainant and etitioner Plea deserve further him is so can his and facts Judge dated Court noted in etitioner im and promise ct of the tion and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- filing of the Ist anticipa similar reli liberty and him to int complainan events and the so calle Rather, it a by the petit into a comp 9. involved in allowed un deem it app 10. failed to m entitling him 11. dismissed. 01.04.2026 gbs -11449-2026 -12 of the present petition raises serious nticipatory bail petition and withdraw ar relief, petitioner was not arrested i ty and an unwarranted space by the Inv to interact with approach and ultim lainant party to sign the so called com ts and timing of compromise, at least a o called Settlement Deed is not a volu er, it appears to be an outcome of und e petitioner upon complainant, a busin compromise, after withdrawal of his In the light of the past an lved in four other criminal cases of ed unwarranted space by the Investig it appropriate to take note of the settle In view of the detailed discu d to make out a case of exceptional ling him for the grant of this extra ordin Thus, finding no merit in the in issed. .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 12- erious concern. Despite rejection of h thdrawal of the second petition seekin ested instead he was allowed comple the Investigating Agency which enable d ultimately exert pressure upon th led compromise. From the sequence o least at this stage, it can be inferred th a voluntary act flowing from free wil undue influence, intimidation exerte a businessman, compelling him to ent of his Ist petition from this Court. ast antecedents of petitioner, who ses of like nature and who has bee vestigating Agency, this Court does n tlement deed. discussion made above, petitioner ha tional depravity/hardship in his favou a ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. n the instant petition, the same is hereb (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No n of his seeking omplete enabled pon the ence of rred that ree will. exerted enter who is as been does not ner has favour s hereby NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.04.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document