Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Randhawa vs State Of Punjab on 12 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2025
Kuldeep Randhawa ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. This is the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 72 dated 20.06.2024 registered under
Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 at
Police Station Zira, Ferozepur.
2. The earlier bail petition bearing CRM-M-14733-2025 titled
"Kuldeep Singh Randhawa vs. State of Punjab", was dismissed as
withdrawn on 19.03.2025, which reads thus:
"The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.0072, dated 20.06.2024, under Sections
420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab
1 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at
Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Dismissed as withdrawn."
3. The instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail has now been
filed after a gap of nearly 05 months of the withdrawal of the first petition.
4. On 25.08.2025, when the present case was taken up, the
following contentions of the respective parties were noticed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court:-
"Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate has put in
appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed
Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant
oppose the bail petition on the ground of maintainability.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second
bail petition and although the order of dismissal of first bail
petition has not been annexed but he submits that it was
withdrawn after arguing for some time. He seeks time to place
on record the said order and also wants to argue on the point
maintainability of the second bail petition in such
circumstances.
List on 03.09.2025."
2 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
5. The above issue was reiterated in the order dated 11.09.2025.
As learned counsel for both sides submitted that the question of
maintainability ought to be determined at the outset, arguments have thus
been heard on the above preliminary objection.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present,
second petition seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable when there is a
material or substantive change in circumstances, which have a direct bearing
on the outcome of the proceedings. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated
30.01.2023 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Manjinder Kaur v.
State of Punjab (CRM-M-40916-2022), which recognises the
maintainability of a subsequent petition where circumstances have
materially altered. The said judgment, he submits, has been followed by a
learned Single Judge in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-1880-
2025, decided on 16.01.2025).
7. It is contended on merit that although the initial allegation
against the petitioner was that he had received a sum of approximately ₹15
lakh, however, he has already returned an amount of ₹22 lakh, including
payments made after the withdrawal of the first petition and that too in the
police station itself. It is further contended that the petitioner has not evaded
his arrest at any stage; rather, the investigating agency never considered it
necessary to arrest him even after withdrawal of the first petition for
anticipatory bail. Counsel submits that between March 2025 and August
2025, the principal co-accused has since been arrested, another co-accused
has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Thus, these developments
3 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
constitute a clear and material change in circumstances from that which
existed on 19.03.2025 when the earlier petition was withdrawn. Hence, the
second petition for grant of anticipatory bail would be maintainable.
8. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant
however contend that in so far as argument made by the petitioner with
vehemence about the petitioner having returned the amount much more than
as was alleged to have been received is concerned, the said aspect is an
argument on merit and was available with the even at the time when his
earlier bail petition was withdrawn after arguing at length, on 19.03.2025.
Hence, the same cannot be construed as a material alteration or change of
the circumstances. They contend that the only circumstance that can be said
to have arisen subsequently is the arrest of the main accused and the grant of
anticipatory bail to the co-accused.
9. Counsel for the complainant submits that the aforesaid issue has
already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
'Rajender Vs. State of Haryana' reported as 2023 NCPHHC 161826 and it
was specifically held that a subsequent petition for anticipatory bail is not
maintainable merely because of further developments such as arrest of the
co-accused, arrest of the main accused, or the grant of bail to any co-
accused. Such circumstances, it was held, do not amount to a "material
alteration" warranting reconsideration. He contends that since these
arguments have already been examined and rejected and held insufficient to
meet the threshold of changed circumstances, the present second petition for
anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. The operative part of the
4 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
judgment in the matter of Rajender (supra) is extracted as under:-
"17. An analysis of the above judicial precedents leads
to the following outcome. Section 362 of the Code operates as
bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the
Court. (1) It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter
has been finally disposed of by a Court, the Court is, in the
absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and
cannot entertain a fresh prayer relief in the matter unless and
until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or
modified to that extent. (2) Second/subsequent/successive
anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable where
such an application has been dismissed by the Court on merits
by passing a speaking order. (3) 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, (4) Further qua the anticipatory
bail application, it can be said that once a first bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands withdrawn, a
second or subsequent bail application would not be
maintainable merely on the ground that some new
inconsequential and cosmetic change in circumstances
has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of
co accused or main accused or bail granted to co accused,
different considerations, some more details, new documents or
5 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
illness of the accused (5) It would also not be maintainable on
a plea or ground that the Court on the earlier occasion failed to
consider any particular aspect or material on record or that
any point then available to the accused was not taken, agitated
or pressed before the Court. (6) Second or subsequent bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is a
change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier
view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has
become obsolete; this is the limited area in which an accused
who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent
application. The petition was for anticipatory bail and the one
which had been filed earlier might have been withdrawn in a
given situation, without inviting the Court to consider the same
on merits; On change of circumstances, when another
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed, the High
Court should have considered the same on merits.
((1) Abdul Basit Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, SLP
(Cri.) No. 68556857 of 2013. decided on 15.9.2014, Supreme
Court, Para 25.]
(12) Abdul Basit Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, SLP
(Crl.) No. 68556857 of 2013, decided on 15.9.2014 Supreme
Court, Para 25.)
6 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
(3) Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald
2080, Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, para
12.]
(4) G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021(1) RCR
(Criminal) 843, three-member bench of Supreme Court, Para
7.)
(15) Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald
2080, Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, para
12.]
[(6) Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald
2080, Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, para
12.]
[(7) Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 CrU
2086, three-member bench of Rajasthan High Court, Para
25.]"
(Emphasis supplied)
10. So much so, even the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Manjinder Kaur (supra), relied upon by the petitioner himself, carves out the
very same principle and the same had been relied by the learned Single
Bench. It has been clearly and unequivocally held therein that developments
such as the arrest of a co-accused or the main accused, or the grant of bail to
any co-accused, do not constitute a "changed circumstance" so as to render a
second petition for anticipatory bail maintainable. The relevant extract of the
judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Manjinder Kaur (supra) reads
7 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
thus:-
"12. We have already held that second/subsequent/
successive anticipatory bail application would not be
maintainable where such an application has been dismissed by
the Court on merits by passing a speaking order. Further qua
the anticipatory bail application, it can be said that once a first
bail application under Section 438 CrPC stands withdrawn, a
second or subsequent bail application would not be
maintainable merely on the ground that some new
inconsequential and cosmetic change in circumstances
has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of
co-accused or main accused or bail granted to co-accused,
different considerations, some more details, new documents or
illness of the accused. It would also not be maintainable on a
plea or ground that the Court on the earlier occasion failed to
consider any particular aspect or material on record or that
any point then available to the accused was not taken, agitated
or pressed before the Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Even though, ordinarily an argument would have been available
to the petitioner to contend that the earlier petition was a mere simplicitor
withdrawal and therefore would not operate as a bar, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Dudeja v. State of
Haryana, (2017) 13 SCC 555, and the merits ought to be considered,
8 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
however, a perusal of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in the earlier bail
petition clearly shows that it was not a case of simplicitor withdrawal at the
very outset and without consideration on merits, rather, the matter was heard
at considerable length, and only when the Court appeared disinclined to
grant the relief sought, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition. The
withdrawal was thus not under a situation where merit has not been
considered at all or was not even technical in nature. It was also not
accompanied by any request or liberty to file a fresh petition. Having taken a
considered chance of seeking a judicial adjudication on merits, and
thereafter withdrawing the petition to avoid an adverse order, the petitioner
cannot now claim the benefit of treating such withdrawal as a simplicitor
withdrawal so as to reopen the matter on merits through a successive second
anticipatory bail petition.
12. The contention that since the police never sought his arrest even
after dismissal of his first anticipatory bail is concerned, the same cannot be
given any undue weightage or importance as any undue weightage to the
same is likely to promote evasion of arrest by resorting to any means. A
premium would not be attached to a violation and non-adherence to the legal
process. It would lead to a horde of multiple petitions being filed despite the
issue having been decided earlier. Thus giving rise to devising corrupt
means to avoid arrest or attempts at forum shopping.
13. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench
in the matter of Manjinder Kaur (supra) followed by a Single Bench in the
matter of Gurpreet Singh (supra), I am of the opinion that mere arrest of the
9 of 10
204 CRM-M-46006-2025 (O&M)
main accused and/or grant of anticipatory bail to the other co-accused cannot
be perceived as a material change of circumstances to entertain a second
petition for anticipatory bail.
14. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
12.11.2025 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
