[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh @Gurtej Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M)
Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Brar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 29.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
for the complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of anticipatory bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 79 dated
17.05.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (both these sections
were deleted and Sections 306 and 201 of IPC were added later on and then
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -2-
on alteration of charge, Sections 302 and 201 of IPC have been added) at
Police Station Jaito Faridkot, District Faridkot.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
statement made by the complainant Surinder Singh, wherein it was alleged
that his niece, Kulwinder Kaur, had been married to the present petitioner
approximately 16 years prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that since the
inception of the matrimonial relationship, the petitioner had been subjecting
the deceased to ill-treatment, including physical assault. It was further alleged
that the petitioner was involved in extramarital relationships, which fact was
disclosed by the deceased to her parental family. On 16.05.2024, upon
receiving information that Kulwinder Kaur had been admitted to a hospital,
the complainant reached there and found her in a critical condition. Upon
inquiry, the deceased allegedly disclosed that on the said day, the petitioner
had thrown her onto the bed, while her mother-in-law caught hold of her arm
and then the petitioner, while slapping her, forcibly administered some
poisonous substance into her mouth with an intent to kill her. Thereafter, he
left the place after snatching her mobile phone. The victim became
unconscious and was subsequently taken to the hospital. The victim later on
died. Initially, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. However, during
the course of investigation, the offence under Section 302 IPC was deleted
and offences under Sections 306 and 201 IPC were added. The petitioner, who
had been arrested and remained in custody, was granted the concession of bail
by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2024.
3. As revealed from the record, during the course of trial, the
prosecution moved an application seeking alteration of charge, which came to
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -3-
be allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.2026, whereby
charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were ordered to be framed against
the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest pursuant to the invocation of the
offence under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner moved an application for grant
of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed
vide order dated 20.03.2026. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this
Court by way of filing a petition bearing number CRM-M-18317-2026, which
too had been dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail in the present case after
having remained in custody for a substantial period. It is submitted that the
petitioner is now apprehending his arrest consequent to the addition of the
offence under Section 302 IPC. No prima facie case for the commission of the
aforesaid offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that no
external injury was found on the body of the deceased, thereby ruling out the
possibility of homicidal death. It is further submitted that a thorough
investigation has already been conducted and material witnesses have been
examined. The statements of the petitioner's 14-year-old son as well as his
business partner indicate that the petitioner was not present at his residence at
the relevant time when the deceased consumed poison. It is also argued that
the petitioner has not misused the concession of bail earlier granted to him.
Learned counsel submits that the present petition, despite being second one, is
maintainable as the aforesaid aspects were not duly considered by this Court
while passing the order in the previous petition. The petitioner is ready to
abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court upon
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -4-
him. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be allowed and
the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority cited as Sumit
vs. State of U. P. and another, 2026 (1) RCR (Criminal) 765 to support his
argument with regard to maintainability of this petition.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant, has opposed the petition and submitted that the earlier
petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by passing a
detailed order. It is argued that there is no substantial change in circumstances
so as to warrant the filing of the present petition, and thus, the same is not
maintainable. It is further argued that, in any case, the appropriate remedy
available to the petitioner is to surrender before the learned trial Court and
seek regular bail in view of the addition of a graver offence, rather than
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. The previous petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed
by this Court only on 06.04.2026 and instantly thereafter, this petition has
been filed on 16.04.2026. The petition does not disclose any change in
circumstances, what to say about any substantial or drastic change. On this
very ground, the petition cannot be stated to be maintainable. Even otherwise,
the petitioner was extended benefit of regular bail by the learned trial Court,
vide order dated 05.08.2024. During the course of trial and as a consequence
of allowing of an application for alteration of charge, the learned trial Court
has passed an order for framing of charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -5-
In Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board : 2022 (1) SCC
(Cri) 676, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person released
on bail is already in constructive custody of law and if the law requires him to
come back to custody for some specified reason, an application for
anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest would not lie since there cannot be
any apprehension of arrest by a person already in constructive custody of law.
Similar observations were made in the authority cited as Pradeep Ram vs.
State State of Jharkhand and another : AIR 2019 SC 3193, wherein it was
held that it is open to the investigating agency to approach the concerned
Court seeking cancellation of the bail or for obtaining an order for arrest of the
accused on addition of a new offence, which shall be considered on its own
merit. Even in Sumit's case (supra), which is a recent pronouncement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that in respect of a circumstance
where after the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-
bailable offences are added, the following option are available to an accused
(i) the accused can surrender and apply for bail for
newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In
the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be
arrested;
(ii) the investigating agency can seek order from the
court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections
437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for
taking into custody the accused who has already been
granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in
exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as
Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who
CRM-M-21018-2026 (O&M) -6-
has already been granted bail to be arrested and
commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-
cognizable offences which may not be necessary always
with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
(iv) In a case where an accused has already been
granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of
an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the
accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition
of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to
arrest the accused from the Court which had granted
the bail.
8. In view of the proposition of law laid down in aforecited cases, it
is explicit that an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the peculiar
circumstance like in this case cannot be stated to be maintainable at all.
Accordingly, finding no ground to allow the petition, the same is hereby
dismissed.
30.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
