Krishan Kumar vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5049 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2025

CRM-M--62132-2025                                                                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

101                                                   CRM-M-62132-2025
                                                    Date of decision: 12.11.202
                                                                           .2025
Krishan Kumar
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                           V/s
State of Haryana
                                                                ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:    Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
                                          *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the

BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case

bearing FIR No.236 No. dated 27.07.2024 27.07.2024,, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 18, 25, 27-A A and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police

Station Munak, District Karnal.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-

pre

arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed vide detailed

order on 15.07.2025.

15.07.2025. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

"17. A perusal rusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima facie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petiti petitioner;

oner; this court refrains from doing so.

18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

1 of 7

19. Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of."

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant

of anticipatory/pre-arrest anticipatory/pre arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on

03.11.2025 03.11.2025.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on

26.07.2024, ASI Surender Singh, while on patrolling with his team near

village Bala received secret information that Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju and

Ramphal @ Bhulli of Jalmana were transporting opium in a black Venue car

from UP/Bihar towards Jalmana via the Panipat Refinery Refinery-Munak Munak road.

Acting on the tip, a nake was laid near the 6000 bridge Munak. The

suspected car was intercepted and the two accused were apprehended.

Upon their request, a Gazetted officer was called to the spot an and d the vehicle

was searched in his presence. From the diggi of the car, 06 kg 15 g of

opium was recovered, sealed and taken into police possession. On these set

of allegations, the instant FIR was registered. During the course of

investigation, the name of the petitioner was disclosed by co co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further iterated that the name of the petitioner does not fi figure gure

either in the FIR or in the secret information received by the police. The

entire case against the petitioner is based merely on the disclosure statement

of the co--accused accused which is inadmissible in the eyes of law and cannot form

the sole basis for his his implication. According to learned counsel, a bare

reading of the FIR shows that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever

with the alleged offence. The name of the petitioner was subsequently 2 of 7

introduced only to harass and falsely implicate him withou withoutt any cogent or

material evidence. Learned counsel has emphasized that the earlier pre-

pre

arrest bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025

without full consideration of the fact that the only material against the

petitioner was limited limited to Call Detail Records (CDR) showing conversation

with the co-accused.

co accused. Furthermore, the investigating agency has not

produced any transcript or content of such calls to indicate that the

petitioner was ever involved in any illicit activity or in the supply of

narcotics. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial

interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be

recovered from him. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no

intention of evading the process process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully

with the investigation. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is

ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served

by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the afore aforementioned mentioned

submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for.

4. Per contra,, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not

maintainable, as it constitutes a second second petition for anticipatory bail, without

there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on

procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that

the first petition was dismissed vide detailed order on 15.0 15.07.2025 before this

Court and neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted to the

petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State

counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score

3 of 7

alone. Learned State counsel, while opposing the plea in hand on merits,

submits that the present case involves recovery of 6 kgs and 15 grams of

opium which falls under the category of commercial quantity under the

NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has further it iterated erated that during the course

of investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of

disclosure statements of co-accused co accused as well as call details records (CDRs)

which clearly show that the petitioner was in constant touch with the main

accused d Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju before and after the recovery. These

repeated telephonic calls indicate a close nexus and possible involvement of

the petitioner in the illegal trade of narcotics. Furthermore, granting bail to

the petitioner at this stage may seriously seriously hamper the ongoing investigation

and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key

witnesses many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation.

Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in

curbing bing the menace of drug trafficking, and the potential threat to the fair

conduct of the trial, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner does

not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the

present petition deserves to to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by

this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Harya Haryana, na, 2024(3)

RCR(Criminal) 65, 65 relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

"11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

4 of 7

I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in la law w & 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/dismiss pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution 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 ar 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 non-prosecution prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail il petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court."

7. Indubitably, the he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail)

preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court on 15.07.2025 after considering the status report and material on

record including the call exchanges with the co co-accused. Thereafter, in the

5 of 7

instant petition i.e. second petition (for grant of anticipatory bail), the

petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously ta taken ken (at the time of

rejection of the first petition on 15.07.2025 15.07.2025).

8. There is no substantial change nay any change in circumstances

which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for

anticipatory bail. Ergo, the instant petition on deserves dismissal on this score

alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process of

law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the

provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the first petition tition was

dismissed on 15.07.2025 and the instant petition has been preferred after a

gap of more than 3½ months.. It is evident that the petitioner has

deliberately evaded the process of law for over 3½ months.. The conduct of

the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any

reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this second petition.

The process rocess of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which

is equitable and fairly.

                 fair .     However; if the petitioner
                                            petitioner-accused
                                                          used chooses to

employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically

aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount tantamounts to an

abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual

must be held held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause

devolution in the process of justice. Protracted absence, eluding the process

of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre pre-arrest arrest bail, in absence of

convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for

sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of more than 3½ months on

part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore,

6 of 7

the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the

nature/severity verity of allegations made against the petitioner, dis dis-entitles entitles him

for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Furthermore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has

been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to

maintain his his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds

urged by the petitioner in the present petition have already been considered

& decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated

15.07.2025. From the entire factual conspectus br brought ought forward in the

present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable

the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition.

10. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The petition ion in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby

dismissed.

(ii) 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 accord accordance with law, without

being influenced with this order.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                       JUDGE

November 12, 2025
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                       Yes/No
                                  7 of 7