The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained that although a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in law, it can succeed only where the applicant demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances. A mere superficial or ostensible change, including the subsequent creation of a document, would not suffice, Justice Sumeet Goel held.The bench thus dismissed a...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained that although a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in law, it can succeed only where the applicant demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances.
A mere superficial or ostensible change, including the subsequent creation of a document, would not suffice, Justice Sumeet Goel held.
The bench thus dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition filed by accused in rioting and unlawful assembly case.
The Court held that the registration of a cross-version Daily Diary Report (DDR) after the rejection of the petitioners' first bail plea did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances, particularly since the contention that petitioner No.1 had himself sustained injuries in the occurrence had already been considered while rejecting the earlier plea.
It observed, "Though it is true that the DDR has been recorded after the earlier order dated 01.05.2026 passed by this Court but merely because a subsequent document has come into existence does not, by itself, reflect that there has been a material change in circumstances."
The correct test, the Court held, is not whether something new has come on record but whether "the subsequent development changes the basis on which the earlier petition was rejected."
The Court set out the principles from its earlier decision in Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana (2024), that a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in law and cannot be rejected on that ground alone, whether the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as not pressed, for non-prosecution or on merits; that for such a petition to succeed the applicant must show a substantial change in circumstances, a mere superficial or ostensible change being insufficient.
Beyond the absence of any change in circumstances, the Court weighed the petitioners' conduct in remaining beyond the process of law for over three months between the dismissal of the first petition and the filing of the second.
Observing that the process of justice is meant to treat every individual equitably and fairly, the Court held that where an accused employs "irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamounts to an abuse of the process of justice."
While liberty and dignity must be held high, the Court said, no one can be permitted to subvert the process of justice; protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest bail, absent convincing reasons, does not call for the Court's sympathy or indulgence. The gap of more than three months was described as "inexplicable nay contumacious."
Finding no fresh ground or circumstance made out, the Court dismissed the petition.
Title: Sakattar Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Appearances: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners;
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.