Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable After Grant Of Regular Bail, Even If Graver Offence Added: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused already granted regular bail cannot seek anticipatory bail merely because a graver offence has been added later, reiterating that such an accused is deemed to be in “constructive custody of law.”Justice Manisha Batra noted that the previous petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Court only on 06.04.2026 and instantly thereafter, the present petition has been filed on 16.04.2026. "The petition does not disclose any change in circumstances, what to say about any substantial or drastic change. On this very ground, the petition cannot be stated to be maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner was extended benefit of regular bail by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 05.08.2024,".added the Court. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC based on allegations by the complainant that the petitioner subjected his wife to cruelty and forcibly administered poison, leading to her death. During investigation, the offence under Section 302 IPC was dropped and replaced with Sections 306 and 201 IPC.The petitioner was arrested and later granted regular bail by the trial court in August 2024. However, during trial, charges were altered and Section 302 IPC was reintroduced along with Section 201 IPC. Apprehending arrest following addition of the graver offence, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail.His earlier anticipatory bail plea had already been dismissed by the High Court on April 6, 2026.Counsel for the petitioner Samay Sandhawalia argued that he had already been granted regular bail and had not misused the concession and no prima facie case under Section 302 IPC was made out.Medical evidence did not support homicidal death and witness statements suggested he was not present at the scene and the second anticipatory bail plea was maintainable as certain aspects were not considered earlier, he added.The State and complainant opposed the plea, contending that there was no change in circumstances since dismissal of the earlier petition. The appropriate remedy was to surrender and seek regular bail for the newly added offence.The Court held that the second anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, especially when the earlier plea had been dismissed only days prior.The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board and Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, to hold that a person already on bail remains in constructive custody of law. Therefore, such a person cannot claim “apprehension of arrest” so as to invoke anticipatory bail.Referring to Sumit v. State of U.P. (2026), the Court underscored that the legal position that when graver offences are added after grant of bail the accused may surrender and seek bail for newly added offences and the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail or custody orders.In the light of the above, the Court held that an anticipatory bail plea in such circumstances is not maintainable.Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant.Title: Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Brar v. State of Punjab Click here to read order

Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable After Grant Of Regular Bail, Even If Graver Offence Added: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags