AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition (described as first whereas actually it is second) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.90 dated 16.06.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 304(2), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(3) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Division A, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.
At the outset, this Court finds it necessary to address a material aspect concerning the maintainability and consideration of the petition in hand. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has, in the present petition, not disclosed the fact that he had earlier also approached this Court seeking the very same relief of anticipatory bail in the same FIR and the said petition has already been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2026 by this Court. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
9.Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the requirement of custodial interrogation to unearth the truth and ensure a fair investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.
10.In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
(i)The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ii)Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
(iii)Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”
Thus, the present petition is essentially a second attempt to seek concession of anticipatory bail from this Court. This fact/omission on the part of the petitioner is of considerable significance and shall be dealt with separately hereinafter.
The gravamen of the FIR, as emerge from the record, is that the complainant, who was working as Manager in Hotel City KLYDE INN, was returning home at night after completing his duty on 11.06.2026 on his TVS Rider motorcycle. When he reached the gate of Pingalwara, near Ghannaiya Market, around eight to nine persons riding on two Activa scooters and one Splendor motorcycle intercepted him. The assailants allegedly got down from their respective vehicles and started assaulting the complainant, some of them assaulted him with metal bracelets (karas), causing injuries on his head and thereafter snatched his TVS Raider motorcycle, helmet and spectacles before fleeing from the spot. The complainant was taken to the Civil Hospital by the owner of the hotel namely Vikram Gandotra. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued.
The petitioner initially approached the Sessions Judge, Amritsar for grant of anticipatory bail, which was declined vide order dated 08.07.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and his earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide a detailed order on 03.08.2026. However, despite the said dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present petition without disclosing either the earlier petition or the order dated 03.08.2026.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has been put a specific query as to the maintainability of the present petition in view of the fact that the petitioner had admittedly approached this Court earlier seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in the very same FIR and the said petition had been dismissed by this Court by a detailed order as recently as on 03.08.2026.
In response to the query, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she was not aware of the dismissal of the earlier petition by this Court and has filed the petition in hand on the basis of the instructions/information made available to her.
The grounds urged in the present petition are, by and large, the same with those raised in the earlier petition and there is no substantial change in the factual or legal position which has been brought to the notice of the Court after dismissal of the earlier petition. The petitioner has essentially sought reconsideration of the same prayer on substantially the same grounds, without pointing out any subsequent development or changed circumstance which may warrant a fresh consideration of the matter.
Since this Court has proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition in hand, at limine stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under:-
“11.As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:
I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.
VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court.”
Indubitably, non-disclosure of an earlier order passed by this Court, particularly an order dismissing the petition on merits, amounts to suppression of a material fact and an attempt to obtain re-consideration of the matter as if the petitioner has been approaching this Court for the first time. In the factual matrix of the case in hand, there is no occasion to once again reiterate/examine the merits of the allegations in detail. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking the same relief of anticipatory bail and the said petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 03.08.2026. In the said order, the relevant facts of the case, the material collected during investigation and, more particularly, the role attributed to the present petitioner, had already been duly taken note of and considered by this Court. The present petition does not disclose any subsequent development or any material change in circumstances which may warrant a fresh examination of those aspects. The grounds now sought to be urged are, by and large, the same as were available to the petitioner at the time of consideration of the earlier petition. Furthermore, no cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that there has been any change in circumstance(s) after the earlier rejection so as to justify a fresh consideration. In the absence of any glaring, substantial or intervening change in circumstances, this Court cannot be persuaded to undertake a second appraisal of the very same factual matrix in the guise of considering a successive petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Court does not deem it necessary to enter into the factual merits of the case afresh, particularly when the role of the petitioner and the relevant circumstances have already been considered by this Court in the earlier proceedings.
There is another aspect nay vital aspect of the matter which deserves to be addressed by this Court.
Concededly, the petitioner had already approached this Court for the same relief arising out of the same FIR and the said petition stands dismissed on merits on 03.08.2026 by this Court. In the present petition, the petitioner has clearly not disclosed this material fact and/or produced a copy of the order passed in the earlier petition & there is neither any reference to the earlier petition in the body of the petition nor disclosure of its dismissal which could justify the filing of the instant petition. So much so, the petition in hand has been described as first petition in the head-note of the petition whereas it is, in fact, the second plea.
Pertinently, the integrity of the adjudicatory process rests upon the foundational requirement of utmost good faith. This assumes even greater significance where a litigant approaches the Court for grant of a discretionary relief such as grant of an anticipatory bail. A petitioner, acting through legal assistance, is burdened with an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts, in a petition for bail, which constitutes a declaration regarding prior bail applications and specific findings recorded therein. This obligation is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive prerequisite, as the adjudication of successive bail plea(s) necessitates evaluation of ‘change in circumstance(s)’ since the last dismissal. The significance of disclosing trajectory of prior bail applications can be gauged from the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again mandated for disclosure of such an essential piece of information in bail applications.
A profitable reference in this regard can be made to dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha, 2024(4) SCC 432, relevant whereof reads thus:
“20.In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:
(1)Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.
(2)Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made. This court has already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani's case (supra) that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders. In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.
(3)The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
(4)It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.”
Furthermore, in a case titled as Zeba Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“42.It has been consistently emphasised by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
47.As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined at multiple stages - from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this Court - where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.
48.Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication.”
In an era where judicial transparency is bolstered by digital infrastructure, the failure to disclose such material fact is increasingly inexcusable. When the information regarding history of a case and other petition(s) arising out of the same FIR, is readily available via the High Court’s website/public domain, a plea of ignorance by counsel filing the petition borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while raising concern regarding non-disclosure of material facts, in Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 AIR Supreme Court 387, relevant whereof reads as under:
“14.It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.”
The imperative for utmost candor and transparency scales to its highest zenith when a litigant invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS/438 Cr.P.C. Unlike an incarcerated bail applicant (seeking regular bail); whose liberty is already severely compromised and whose access to legal consultation, document compilation etc. might occasionally be fraught with the disorienting realities of confinement; an untethered bail applicant (seeking anticipatory bail) enjoys unfettered freedom, ample time, and unhindered proximity to legal counsel to meticulously construct, verify, and swear upon an affidavit the exact trajectory of his legal pursuits. In the realm of anticipatory bail, where the judicial hand is extended preemptively to shield an individual from the iron grip of arrest, the rule of "approaching the Court with clean hands" is not a mere technicality but a mandatory condition precedent. An individual seeking an equitable relief, while concealing such pertinent aspect, clandestinely mocks the process of court. Ergo, the omission exposed is to be considered a deliberate, unpardonable subversion of the rule of law. It is necessary to detest such vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with necessary firmness. A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability, have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner with Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Amritsar, within four weeks from today. In case such costs are deposited; CJM, Amritsar shall have the same remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. In case, the said costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the CJM, Amritsar is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar who shall have such costs recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar shall have the same submitted to CJM, Amritsar, for further remittance thereof to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. A compliance report be sent by CJM, Amritsar as also Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, to this Court accordingly.
Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to CJM, Amritsar as also Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar for requisite compliance.
Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.