Successive Bail Pleas Without Change In Circumstances Amount To 'Forum Shopping': P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a litigant who files successive anticipatory bail pleas for the same relief, without any material change in circumstances, engages in "a classic case of forum shopping". It said such a litigant "treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation."

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition by a man accused of circulating a woman's private photographs and videos on social media.

"The sanctity of the judicial process is predicated upon the principle of finality of judicial orders. While there is no express statutory embargo against the filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, such a right is not an absolute charter for procedural adventurism. A litigant who approaches the same Court for the same relief, absent any material change in circumstances engages in a stratagem of attrition that is less a pursuit of justice and more an exercise of testing the waters. Such a practice constitutes a classic case of forum shopping, wherein the litigant treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation," the Court said.

It further added that, "By repeatedly knocking on the same door without a fresh cause of action, such a litigant attempt to circumvent the hierarchy of the courts ignoring the well-settled principle that a party aggrieved by an order must ascend the judicial ladder rather than move horizontally in hopes of a more favourable wind."

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in FIR registered under Section 356(2) of the BNS (defamation) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. His first anticipatory bail plea had been dismissed on merits by the High Court on 01.10.2026.

According to the complaint, the petitioner's wife had stayed for a time at the complainant's house following matrimonial discord, and used the complainant's mobile phone, whose password she knew. The complainant alleged that personal data was taken from her phone during this stay. She alleged that, after a falling out, she was threatened that her private pictures and videos would be circulated on social media. On 28.10.2025, she received a call from an unknown number telling her that such pictures and videos were being circulated. The FIR was registered after an inquiry by a DSP.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were concocted and that the petitioner had been falsely implicated because of a neighbourhood rivalry. He said six earlier inquiries had found nothing incriminating, and that the mobile number used to circulate the material did not belong to the petitioner.

As the change in circumstances justifying a second plea, counsel argued that the petitioner had in fact supplied the password and lock pattern of the mobile phone in question. He said the petitioner had been unable to counter the Investigating Officer's contrary claim at the earlier hearing. He also argued that nothing remained to be recovered and that the petitioner was ready to join the investigation.

The State argued that no material change in circumstances had been shown and that the petition deserved dismissal on that ground alone. It also argued that custodial interrogation was necessary given the seriousness of the allegations, and that the petitioner was likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana (2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 65). That decision held that a second or successive anticipatory bail plea is maintainable, whether the earlier plea was withdrawn or dismissed on merits. To succeed, however, the applicant must show a "substantial change in circumstances", and a superficial or ostensible change will not do.

The Court held that the petitioner's claim that he could not counter the IO's information at the earlier hearing was not a substantial or material change in circumstances. The alleged omission to rebut that information at the earlier stage "by itself, does not constitute a subsequent change in circumstance(s)" with a material bearing on the merits. The grounds raised were the same as those available when the first plea was dismissed. Entertaining successive petitions without any new fact or development would amount to "permitting repeated attempts for the same relief, which cannot be countenanced in law."

On forum shopping, the Court observed that the sanctity of the judicial process rests on the finality of judicial orders. While there is no express statutory bar on successive anticipatory bail applications, the right to file them "is not an absolute charter for procedural adventurism." A litigant who returns to the same court for the same relief without a material change engages in "a stratagem of attrition that is less a pursuit of justice and more an exercise of testing the waters," the Court said.

Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner had approached the Court afresh after his earlier plea was dismissed, the Court found no ground to grant anticipatory bail. It also held that custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation.

The petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the investigation.

Counsel: Sukhjit Singh for the petitioner; Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab