Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable After Denial Of Relief By Supreme Court; Compromise No Ground: P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable once the earlier plea has been rejected up to the Supreme Court, observing that a subsequent compromise between parties cannot override judicial directions. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 227]Justice Sumeet Goel said, “the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable once the earlier plea has been rejected up to the Supreme Court, observing that a subsequent compromise between parties cannot override judicial directions. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 227]
Justice Sumeet Goel said, “the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The earlier petition preferred by petitioners seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned and detailed order dated 24.02.2026 and 21.04.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 has posed challenge thereto before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also did not succeed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the petitioner No.2 by observing that in case he surrendered within two weeks and moved an application for grant of regular bail, the same be considered on merits."
However, the petitioner No.2, instead of complying with the said order, has again approached this Court seeking the concession of anticipatory bail. Such a course is impermissible particularly when the plea for grant of anticipatory bail has already been declined upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it added.
The Court further noted that the only circumstance sought to be projected by the petitioners as a fresh ground is the alleged compromise dated 30.05.2026. However, the same does not advance the case of the petitioners as the compromise cannot override or dilute the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it said.
The Court was dealing with a second petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in a cheating and immigration fraud case registered in Kapurthala, Punjab.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the alleged compromise does not constitute a fresh ground warranting reconsideration of anticipatory bail, especially when the earlier rejection has attained finality.
It further took note of the petitioner's conduct in failing to comply with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to surrender and seek regular bail, observing that such conduct disentitles him from discretionary relief.
The FIR in question pertains to allegations of cheating and fraud, wherein the accused allegedly took ₹35 lakh from the complainant on the pretext of facilitating his son's immigration to the United States but failed to do so.
Dismissing the petition, the Court held that no new circumstance had arisen to justify entertaining a second anticipatory bail plea and reiterated that the appropriate course for the petitioner was to comply with the Supreme Court's directions.
The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case, and the investigation and trial shall proceed independently in accordance with law.
Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Title: Lehna Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 227