Pritam Singh vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 999 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pritam Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 February, 2026

CRM-M-6160-2026                                                              1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH
109
                                              CRM-M-6160-2026
                                              Date of decision: 04.02.2026

Pritam Singh                                                 ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Haryana                                             ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present :    Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

           *****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. This is the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by

petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.294 dated 24.12.2025 registered u/s

318(4), 316(5) of BNS (Section 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS added later on)

at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal.

2. Petitioner, who is working as C.A./Field Assistant with

UHBVN, was accused of issuing fake notices u/s 152 of the Electricity Act,

2003 (pertaining to compounding of offences) by using fake payment receipt

number, resulting in loss of approximately Rs.27 lakhs to State Exchequer.

Admittedly, application for grant of pre-arrest bail moved by

the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Kaithal vide order dated 02.01.2026.

His first petition for Anticipatory bail was dismissed by this

Court vide following order dated 15.01.2026:-

"1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.294 dated 24.12.2025 registered against him, under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal, has filed the petition for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS.

2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be

1 of 8

noticed herein below:-

"Ashish Gautam, SDO(OP), Sub-Division UHBVN, Siwan filed a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal vide Memo No. 1710 dated 17.12.2025 with a request to register FIR against Sh. Pritam CA/Field Assistant (petitioner) and Sh. Dinesh DEO and others under Sub-Division Siwan for grave irregularity in recovery of penalty amount in electricity theft cases. On the basis of statements of consumers, source report of HSENB, report from Head Cashier and office record, it has been found that the abovementioned persons were involved in financial fraud related to recovery of penalty amount against theft of electricity, for which FIRs were registered in HSENB Police Station, Kaithal. They issued fake Notice of 152 for FIR cancellation by using fake payment receipt number, causing a financial loss of ₹5,17,303 (Rupees Five Lakh Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Three), which has been detected till now as on 17.12.2025. An internal audit is being conducted for estimation of exact financial loss to the Nigam by higher authority. The same will be informed to your good office. Therefore, it is kindly requested to register an FIR in the matter against the culprits. Copies of consumer statements, source report of HSENB, office record and statement of cashier are attached for reference. Sd/- Ashish Gautam, SDO(OP), Sub-Division UHBVN, Siwan. Complaint was inquired into by the police officials, finding substance in the allegations levelled by the complainant a formal case vide FIR No.294 dated 24.12.2025 u/s 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal was registered against the petitioner.

3. Apprehending his arrest, the present petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The same was dismissed in

2 of 8

terms of the order dated 02.01.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, who has been discharging his duties conscientiously to the best of his ability and comes from a well established family, has been falsely implicated in the present case. A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that no offence u/s 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS is made out against the petitioner, as notices u/s 152 Electricity Act, 2003 could not have been issued without the signatures and verification of the concerned SDO i.e. the present complainant. Only with a view to save himself, SDO has got lodged the present frivolous complaint. In any case, petitioner denies having embezzled any amount pertaining to the consumer or Nigam as also having ever issued fake notices or receipts.

It is further the submission of learned counsel that the entire case of the prosecution, even if presumed to be true (though not admitted) is based on documentary evidence. All the documents are in possession of the Investigating Officer. No recovery is to be effected from petitioner, thus his custodial interrogation is not needed. Nonetheless, petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for. Prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail has been made for.

5. Per contra, while opposing the request of grant of pre-arrest bail learned State counsel submits that after lodging of the FIR the matter was investigated into, when it came out that present petitioner in conspiracy with co-accused Dinesh Kumar (computer operator) embezzled Rs.5,17,303/-. Further amount of Rs.22,09,564/- is also likely to have been embezzled. While highlighting the modus operandi of the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that as per Investigating Agency, both the petitioner and co-accused used to prepare fake notices u/s 152 Electricity Act (pertaining to compounding of offences) on the basis of which 137 FIRs were cancelled. When the aforesaid illegal acts of the petitioner came to light, he absented from

3 of 8

duty and was suspended on 22.12.2025.

It is further the submission of learned State counsel that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is needed to recover the embezzled amount, fake notices, computer printer etc. and to find out their modus operandi, how many persons are involved etc. Thus, petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour entitling him the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents on record.

7. Before expressing any opinion on the submissions raised by learned counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discussed.

(i). In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2019 SC 4198, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"76. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

Further in Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda, 2025 AIR SC 2431, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are

4 of 8

considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country...."

(ii). In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner."

8. Reverting back to the case in hand, facts leading to the lodging of the FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. Considering that investigation is at its initial stage, amount alleged to have been involved in the present case is more than Rs.27 lakh. The Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is needed to find out the modus opreandi adopted by him

(p) and co-accused (who has also not been arrested till date), to recover the embezzled money, fake notices etc. as also to find out who are all involved in this conspiracy. Economic offences committed by public servant affect the financial stability of the country and thus, need to be dealt with strictly.

9. Resultantly, petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him for the grant of this extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

10. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contends that

the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable. In support

of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-13315-2024 titled as 'Bhisham

Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on 09.04.2024.

It is further the submission of learned counsel that petitioner

5 of 8

has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has served the department

for 22 years with utmost honesty and dedication. There is no single

document to substantiate the plea of the prosecution that fake notices were

issued by the petitioner in his own handwriting/signatures. Further, as per

learned counsel petitioner has been made a scapegoat for saving the senior

officers including the complainant, who was supposedly checking the

accounts on monthly basis. It is further the submission of learned counsel

that petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for by

the IO, as also that all the documents etc. are in the possession of police

officials, for which the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not needed.

It is settled that second petition for grant of anticipatory bail can

be filed only if there has been substantial change in the circumstances since

the dismissal of the first one. In Babu Singh and others vs. The State of

U.P. 1978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

as under:-

".....................But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preciude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further, developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con."

In Manjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald

2080, this Court has held as follows:-

"2. The question, therefore, which requires to be considered and answered is "whether a second anticipatory bail

6 of 8

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the first one filed by the petitioner has been withdrawn?"

xxxx xxxx xxxx

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 Cr.P.C. stand 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. However, the second/subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable only if there is substantial material and substantive change in the fact situation and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law."

In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & anr.,

2021(1) RCR Criminal) 843, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

".................The specious reasons 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. After going through the aforesaid judgments it is clear that

second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, after the dismissal of the first

one on merits, is maintainable only if there has been substantial change in

7 of 8

the facts and circumstances due to some subsequent events. Here in the

instance case, no change in the circumstance since the dismissal of the first

petition, has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, who has

virtually repeated what was contended by the earlier counsel Sh. Samrat

Malik. All the contentions now being raised were specifically dealt with in

the previous order dated 15.01.2026. This being the situation, no occasion

arises for this Court to take a different view, as what was taken earlier.

5. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merit, is

hereby dismissed.

                                            (AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
                                                  JUDGE

04.02.2026
Hemant
             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes / No
             Whether reportable                :      Yes / No




                                   8 of 8