CRM-M v. Vers

Judgment

1. Petitioner, who is an accuse accused in case FIR No. 251 date

23.10.2025 .2025, registered against him unde under Sections 331, 118(1), 115(2 115(2), 324(4), 19 4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, at Police olice Station City-I, Abohar, Distri District Fazilka, ha , has filed the present 3rd petition f ition for grant of anticipatory bail. Fir First petition bea ion bearing CRM-M-65419-2025, seek seeking similar relief, was dismisse smissed by this Cou is Court vide order dated 22.12.2025.

2025. Same is reproduced hereinafter: nafter:- “1. Petitioner, an accused used in case FIR No. 251 date

23.10.2025, registered agains ainst him under Sections 331, 118(1 18(1), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 o 90 of BNS, at Police Station City ity-1, Abohar, has filed the present sent petition for grant of anticipato patory bail. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 2- -2

2. Relevant facts as emerg erging from the documents on recor record be noticed hereinbelow:- Sunil Kumar, son of Soh f Sohan Lal, resident of Street No.2/ o.2/3, Sant Nagar, Abohar, set the c the criminal law in motion by filing iling a complaint pointing therein tha n that at about 11 PM on 22.10.202 .2025, Gautam Sarbata, Lucky and and Sumit were creating a ruckus s in the street. He tried to stop th p them. Little later at about 1-1.3

1.30 AM, these persons along wi g with 8-10 other unknown person ersons armed with ‘kapas’ walked in ed into the street, raised lalkaras an s and gave beatings to Rahul. Whe them, When complainant tried to stop them Lucky armed with ‘Kapa’ hit h hit him (c) with the same on the rig e right side of forehead. All the misc miscreants including Mukesh, Ama Aman, Aditya, Mokesh Pandit and nd Laxmi Narayan @ Gudri (prese resent petitioner) armed with danda andas forcibly entered his (c) hou and after breaking various ho us household articles, they fled awa spot along wi their respective weapon apons. Complainant alleged that Luc Lucky etc. are drug addicts and de d deal in sale and purchase of into intoxicants. Vehicle was arrange anged. Both, complainant and Rahu ahul were got admitted in the Civ Civil

Hospital, Abohar, where firs first-aid was provided to them. O m. On account of delicate medical dical condition, injured Rahul wa l was referred to Guru Gobind Sing Singh Medical College, Faridkot fo ot for further treatment. With this this backdrop, complainant requeste uested the police authorities to catch atch hold of the miscreants, to initia nitiate appropriate proceedings aga against them. On the basis of sa f said complaint and medico legal re al reports, a formal case vide FIR N IR No. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 3- -3 251 dated 23.10.2025, was was registered against him, und Sections 331, 118(1), 115(2), 5(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of BNS, NS, at har. Police Station City-1, Abohar. As per the MLR of com f complainant, he received one blu injury on right side of his f his forehead, which was kept und observation whereas, Rahul, r ul, received five injuries, out of whic injuries No. 3, 4 were opined ined to have been caused with shar edged weapon and injuries No s No.1, 2 and 5 with blunt weapon. A on. At the injuries were kept under ob er observation. Apprehending his arres rrest, petitioner moved an applicatio cation for grant of pre-arrest bail. Th il. The same was dismissed by learne Sessions Judge, Fazilka, in t in terms of order dated 11.11.202 .2025. Aggrieved of which, the presen resent petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel the petitioner contends petitioner has been falsely im y implicated in the present case on e only on account of political rivalr ivalry. False allegations have bee levelled by complainant. No su o such incident ever occurred. Continuing further, lear learned counsel contends that (cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14) (cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:14) (cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:4) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:16) (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:23) (cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11) (cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:27)(cid:4) (cid:4) Learned counsel further submits f that custodi todial interrogation of petitioner is r is not needed, for no recovery is y is to be effected from him, nonethel etheless, however, he is still ready an dy and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 4- -4 willing to join investigation as n as and when called for. Prayer fo er for allowing present petition has b has been made.

4. Per Contra, while opp opposing the request of petitione tioner, learned State counsel submits mits that petitioner being member ber of unlawful assembly forcibly en y entered in the house of complaina ainant at late hours and broke/damag amaged the household articles as als s also assaulted him (c) and Rahul. . He next contends (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:3) (cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:13) (cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20) (cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17) (cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:5) (cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:4) (cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:8) (cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:4) (cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:24)(cid:4) (cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:20) (cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14) (cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:5) (cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:27)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) !(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:3)"(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:4) (cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:7) (cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:3)"(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4) (cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:7) (cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)#(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:4) (cid:4) $(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:27)

5. Heard learned counsel nsel for the parties and have peruse erused the documents on record.

6. Before expressing any o ny opinion on the submissions raise raised by learned counsel of the pa e parties, it would be appropriate iate to refer to certain judgments o nts of Hon’ble the Supreme Cour Court, wherein the factors to be kep kept in mind while dealing with a ith an application for grant of anticip ssed. nticipatory bail, have been discussed In State of M.P. v. Ram f M.P. Ram Kishna Balothia [State of M.P v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (19 , (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995 SCC (Cr (Cri) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 5- -5 439], the Supreme Court held held that the right of anticipatory ba ry bail is not a part of Article 21 of t of the Constitution of India and he d held as under: (SCC p. 226, para 7 ra 7) “7. … We find it diffic difficult to accept the contention th n that Section 438 of the Co Code of Criminal Procedure is a is an integral part of Article 2 icle 21. In the first place, there was n as no provision similar to S to Section 438 in the old Crimin iminal Procedure Code. The L he Law Commission in its 41st Repo recommended introduc duction of a provision for grant ant of anticipatory bail. It obs observed: ‘We agree that this wou would be a useful advantage. Thoug we must add that it is in is in very exceptional cases that suc t such power should be ex exercised.’ In f light of recommendation, Sectio ection 438 was incorporated, for th or the first time, in the Crim Criminal Procedure Code of 197

1973. Looking to the cautio utious recommendation of the La Law Commission, the powe power to grant anticipatory bail ail is conferred only on a Co Court of Session or the High Cour Court. Also, anticipatory bail bail cannot be granted as a matter tter of right. It is essentially ally a statutory right conferred lon after the coming into fo to force of the Constitution. It cann be considered as an ess n essential ingredient of Article 21 21 of the Constitution. And nd its non-application to a certa ertain special category of of f offences cannot be considered a ed as violative of Article 21. (

21. (emphasis supplied) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 6- -6

72. We are conscious of th of the fact that the legislative inte intent behind the introduction of Sec f Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard th rd the individual's personal liberty erty and to protect him from th m the possibility of being humiliate iliated and from being subjected ted to unnecessary police custody. y. However, the court must also kee o keep in view that a criminal offence fence is not just an offence against a nst an individual, rather the large arger societal interest is at stak stake. Therefore, a delicate balanc lance is required to be establishe lished between the two rights—safeg afeguarding the personal liberty of a of an individual and the societal tal interest. It cannot be said th d that refusal to grant anticipatory b ry bail would amount to denial of th of the rights conferred upon the ap appellant under Article 21 of th of the Constitution of India.

73. to 76 XX XX XX XX

77. After referring to Si Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetr [Siddharam Satlingappa Mh Mhetre v. State of Maharashtr shtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011 011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and oth judgments and observing that that anticipatory bail can be grante ranted only in exceptional circumsta mstances, in [Jai Prakash Singh ngh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC SCC 379: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468 468], the Supreme Court held as und s under: (SCC p. 386, para 19) “19. Parameters for for grant of anticipatory bail in in a serious offence are req required to be satisfied and furth urther while granting such re h relief, the court must record th rd the reasons therefor. Antici nticipatory bail can be granted only nly in exceptional circumstanc stances where the court is prima fac of the view that the app applicant has falsely been enroped ped in GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 7- -7 the crime and would n [D.K. ld not misuse his liberty. (See [D.K Ganesh Babu v. P.T. .T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434 434: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 3 ri) 345], [State of Maharashtra tra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain M in Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SC SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (C (Cri) 176] and [Union of India dia v. Padam Narain Aggarw garwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].)”

7. The factual backdrop o op of the case and the role played b yed by the petitioner in the entire inci incident has been highlighted in par n para 2 of this order. In view of s of submissions advanced by learne State counsel, the role attribut ributed to petitioner in incident, Cou Court is of the opinion that his pr s presence is needed to recover th er the weapon used in the commissi mission of offence, hence, he has n as not been able to make out a c a case of exceptional depravity o ity or hardship in his favour entitl ntitling him the grant of this extr ordinary relief of grant of pre pre-arrest bail.

8. The petition being d g devoid of any merit is hereb dismissed.”

2. After the dismissal of 1st petit petition on merits, petitioner filed 2 filed 2nd petition bea ion bearing CRM-M-6807-2026 seekin seeking similar relief of pre-arrest bai est bail. The said p said petition was dismissed as withd withdrawn from this Court vide ord e order dated 05.02

05.02.206, in the following terms:- “Learned counsel for the petit petitioner prays for withdrawal of th of the present petition. Dismissed as withdrawn.”

3. The only changed circumstan mstance put forth by petitioner is th r is that parties hav es have amicably resolved their di eir dispute and have entered into into a GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 8- -8 compromis romise vide compromise deed dated dated 10.2.2026 (Annexure P-6). Base Based on the said said compromise, a petition bearing earing CRM-M-13107-2026 for gettin r getting the FIR in IR in question quashed has been file en filed, which is pending adjudicatio dication before this re this Court. Hence, there being no need f need for custodial interrogation, pray , prayer for allowin llowing the present petition seeking re king relief of anticipatory bail has bee as been made.

4. Questions that need adjudicati dication, at this stage, are as to wheth whether in the light e light of facts and circumstances of ces of case brought on record, secon petition fo ion for grant of anticipatory bail is bail is maintainable. If yes, wheth whether petitioner d ioner deserves the relief sought for.

5. It is settled that second petition etition for grant of anticipatory bail ca bail can be filed onl led only if there has been substantial c ntial change in the circumstances sinc es since the dismiss ismissal of the first one. In Babu Si u Singh and others vs. The State o tate of U.P. 1978 978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has he has held - as under:- “…………………But an order rder refusing an application for ba r bail does not necessarily preciud ciude another, on a later occasio asion, giving more materials, furth further, developments and differe fferent considerations. While we s e surely must set store by th y this circumstance, we cannot acce accede to the faint plea that we ar e are, barred from second considera ideration' at a later stage. An interi nterim direction is not a conclus clusive adjudication, and update reconsideration is not over tu er turning an earlier negation. In th In this view, we entertain the applica plication and evaluate the merits pr its pro and con.” GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 9- -9 In Manjinder Kaur vs. State tate of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Hera 2080, this C , this Court has held as follows:- “2. The question, therefore, re, which requires to be considere idered and answered is "whether ether a second anticipatory ba application under Section 438 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when th en the first one filed by the petitioner oner has been withdrawn?"

12. We have already held th ld that second/subsequent/successiv essive anticipatory bail application w ion would not be maintainable whe such an application has been een dismissed by the Court on meri merits by passing a speaking order. der. Further qua the anticipatory ba ry bail application, it can be said th id that once a first bail applicatio cation under Section 438 Cr.P.C. .C. stand withdrawn, a second o nd or subsequent bail application w on would not be maintainable mere on the ground that some ne e new inconsequential and cosmet smetic change in circumstances es has/have come about, urther developments such as arrest o est of co-accused or main accused o sed or bail granted to co-accused, di , different considerations, some mo details, new documents or illn r illness of the accused. It would als d also not be maintainable on a plea plea or ground that the Court on th on the earlier occasion failed to co o consider any particular aspect o ect or material on record or that hat any point then available to th to the accused was not taken, agitate itated or pressed before the Court. However, the second/subseque equent bail application under Sectio ection 438 Cr.P.C. would be mainta intainable only if there is substanti tantial material and substantive ch e change in the fact situation an n and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 10- -10 circumstances of the case due aw." due to subsequent events or in law." In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. Th s. The State of Tamil Nadu & anr anr., 2021(1) RC ) RCR Criminal) 843, the Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court has held as under under: “……………..The specious rea s reasons of change in circumstanc tances cannot be invoked for success cessive anticipatory bail application ations, once it is rejected by a speakin eaking order and that too by the sam Judge." In Bhisham Singh v. State o te of Haryana, 2024 (3) RCR (Crl (Crl.) 65, a coord coordinate Bench of this Court while while discussing the various judgmen dgments of Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court and of this Cou is Court, on the subject in issue, held a , held as follows:- “11. As an epilogue to the the above rumination, the followin principles emerge: I. Second/successive ant anticipatory bail petition(s) under 438 of Cr.P.C., .C., 1973 is maintainable in law aw & hence such petition oug ought not to be rejected solely on th on the ground of maintainabili ability thereof. II. Such second/successive ssive anticipatory bail petition(s) (s) is whether earlier petition was p dismissed a withdrawn/dismissed as d as not pressed/dismissed for no r non- prosecution or earlier p rits. ier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successi cessive anticipatory bail petition(s) n(s) to succeed, petitioner/applicant b essentially/pertinently tly required to show substanti tantial GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 11- -11 change in circumstan stances and showing of a me superficial or ostensible sible change would not suffice. IV. No exhaustive guideline elines can possible be laid down as as to what would consti nstitute substantial e change circumstances as every very case has its own unique fact facts/ circumstance. Accordin rdingly, this issue is best left to judicial wisdom and dis d discretion of the Court dealing wi g with such second/successive sive anticipatory bail petition (s). V. In case a Court choo chooses to grant second/successiv essive anticipatory bail petitio etition (s), cogent and lucid reason are pertinently required ired to be recorded for granting suc g such plea despite such a a plea being second/successiv essive anticipatory petition (s) n (s). In other words, the cause for for a Court having successful ssfully countenanced/entertained suc d such second/successive petit petition(s) ought to be readily an y and clearly decipherable fro e from the said order passed. VI. Once a plea for anticip ticipatory bail has been dismissed a sed as withdrawn/dismissed as d as not pressed/dismissed for no r non- prosecution or dismisse issed on merits by the High Court, n urt, no second/successive antic anticipatory bail petition (s) shall b all be entertained by a Session ssions Court.”

6. Keeping the above settled prin ed principles in mind, let us revert bac ert back to the facts e facts of the case in hand. The only ‘changed circumstance’ assigned by by the petitioner is the compromis promise deed said to have been effecte effected between him him and complainant party. The C The Court has examined the purporte urported compromis romise produced along with the peti e petition. Material on record and th and the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 12- -12 conduct of uct of the petitioner, who claims to be s to be a Worker of the a political part al party, during the i g the interregnum between the dismiss ismissal of the petition and filing of th g of the present pe nt petition raises serious concern. ncern. Despite rejection of his I his Ist anticipatory ipatory bail petition and withdrawal drawal of the second petition seekin seeking similar reli ar relief, petitioner was not arrested i ested instead he was allowed comple omplete liberty and ty and an unwarranted space by the Inv the Investigating Agency which enable enabled him to int to interact with approach and ultim d ultimately exert pressure upon th pon the complainan lainant party to sign the so called com led compromise. From the sequence o ence of events and ts and timing of compromise, at least a least at this stage, it can be inferred th rred that the so calle o called settlement is not a voluntary a tary act flowing from free will. Rathe Rather, it appears t pears to be an outcome of influence, , intimidation by the petitioner an ner and, thus, it is it is evident that he has misused sused his position to influence/coerc e/coerce complainan lainant, who earns his livelihood by d d by doing Jagrans/reciting Bhajans ans, to enter into into a compromise after rejection o ction of his Ist petition and thereaft ereafter withdrawal drawal of 2nd one. Petitioner and his nd his other accomplices barged insid d inside the house ouse of the complainant, ransacked acked the house, mercilessly assaulte ssaulted him (c), wh (c), who suffered five injuries. Even Even the whereabouts of other accuse accused are not kno ot known. The Court is duty bound to und to protect the innocent victims an ims and the agency gency of the Court should not be reduc e reduced to a bargaining incident in th nt in the hands of a s of a powerful individual. That apar t apart, it also raises a serious questio question mark on the on the efficiency of the Investigating gating Officer of the case. When viewe viewed in the light e light of factual scenario of the case, n case, no ground is made out to grant th rant the relief soug f sought for; the so called compro compromise deed is not a ‘change circumstan stance’ warranting this Court to tak to take a different view from what wa hat was taken earlie

025. earlier vide order dated 22.12.2025. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -14351-2026 13- -13

7. In view of the detailed discu discussion made above, petitioner ha ner has failed to m d to make out a case of exceptional tional depravity/hardship in his favou favour entitling him ling him for the grant of this extra ordin a ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Thus, finding no merit in the in he instant petition, the same is hereb s hereby

8. issed. dismissed. .2026

17.03.2026 NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document