Sanjay Talwar And Another vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 14013 P&H

CRM-M-51358-2022                                                       -1-



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                       CRM-M-51358-2022
                                       Date of decision:-9.11.2022


Sanjay Talwar and another
                                                             ...Petitioners


                   Versus


State of Punjab
                                                            ...Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN



Present   : Mr.Yagyaang Ajay, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            ****

H.S. MADAAN, J.(ORAL)

This third petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest

bail has been filed by the petitioners Sanjay Talwar and Davinder Singh

Gill, both of them being accused in FIR No.39 dated 30.3.2021, under

Section 306 IPC (Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC added

later on), registered with Police Station City, Moga, District Moga.

The first petition bearing CRM-M-16070-2021 filed by the

petitioners was dismissed vide a detailed order dated 27.4.2021, copy of

that order is available on record as Annexure P8 and the second petition

bearing CRM-M-38411 of 2022 filed by the petitioners was withdrawn

by counsel for the petitioners on 2.9.2022 and it was dismissed as

withdrawn, copy of that is available on record as Annexure P9.

1 of 2

Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment G.R. Ananda Babu

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. arising out of SLP(Crl.)

No.213 of 2021 has observed as under:

"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications

ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and

the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent

No.2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation.

The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be

invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is

rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge."

Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he be

permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage.

Permission is granted.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

However, it is observed that if the petitioners approach this

Court again with a similar petition that would be dismissed with

exemplary costs.

                                               (H.S.MADAAN)
9.11.2022                                         JUDGE
Brij

Whether reasoned/speaking :             Yes/No

Whether reportable                :     Yes/No




                               2 of 2