Court rules no substantial change in circumstances; prolonged evasion from law cited as abuse of justice process.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling on 10th August 2026, denied the second anticipatory bail plea filed by Sakattar Singh and his co-petitioners. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, emphasized that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since their initial bail application was rejected on 1st May 2026.
The case stems from an FIR registered on 1st March 2026, accusing the petitioners of serious offenses, including assault and causing grievous injury to the complainant, Dilbagh Singh. The complainant alleged that the petitioners attacked him with weapons, resulting in multiple injuries, two of which were grievous.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Umesh Aggarwal, argued their innocence, claiming a cross-version of the incident where petitioner No.1 also suffered injuries. They contended that the delay in filing the FIR and the subsequent registration of a DDR constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting reconsideration of their bail plea.
However, the State's counsel, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioners had evaded arrest for over three months, which the court deemed as a deliberate attempt to frustrate the legal process. The court agreed, stating that the absence of a substantial change in circumstances, coupled with the petitioners' conduct, disqualified them from receiving anticipatory bail.
The judgment cited a previous ruling in Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that second or successive anticipatory bail petitions require a substantial change in circumstances to be considered. The court found that the petitioners' arguments did not meet this threshold, as the alleged new evidence was already considered in the earlier decision.
Justice Goel's decision underscores the court's stance on upholding the integrity of the justice process, cautioning against tactics that undermine legal proceedings. The court ordered that the investigation and any subsequent trial proceed without being influenced by this order.
Bottom Line :
Second/successive anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not maintainable without substantial change in circumstances, and prolonged evasion from the process of law disqualifies the petitioner from grant of anticipatory bail.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482
Sakattar Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2960864
