Successive Anticipatory Bail Petitions Without Change in Circumstances Amount to Forum Shopping: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Costs
Case Name: Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 10 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-12909-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that second or successive anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable in law but can succeed only when there is a substantial change in circumstances after withdrawal or dismissal of the earlier petition. Filing repetitive petitions on identical grounds constitutes procedural misuse and forum shopping, and courts must firmly discourage such attempts.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 315 dated 26.11.2024 registered at Police Station Phillaur, Jalandhar Rural for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (now Sections 316 and 318 BNS) along with Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014.
The allegations in the FIR stated that the petitioner posed as a travel agent and promised to arrange overseas employment for the complainant in Spain. Relying on this representation, the complainant and his family transferred several amounts totaling approximately ₹3,65,000 to a bank account allegedly provided by the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently forwarded a purported copy of a visa through electronic means which later turned out to be forged. When the complainant received his passport without any valid visa endorsement and sought a refund, the petitioner allegedly failed to return the money and extended threats.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail but withdrew the petition on 31.07.2025. The present petition, filed on 26.02.2026, was thus the second attempt seeking the same relief.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that he had been falsely implicated and that another person had introduced the complainant and handled financial dealings. The petitioner also expressed willingness to refund the amount and contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the present application was not maintainable as it was a second anticipatory bail petition without any substantial change in circumstances after withdrawal of the earlier petition. It was also submitted that the petitioner had allegedly induced the complainant to part with money on the false promise of arranging a work permit and visa for Spain and had forwarded a forged visa document. The State further pointed out that the petitioner was involved in other criminal cases of a similar nature.
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 65, which summarised the governing principles for successive anticipatory bail petitions. The Court reiterated that while a second anticipatory bail petition is legally maintainable, the petitioner must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. A superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.
Examining the facts of the case, the Court observed that the first anticipatory bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn and no liberty had been granted to file a fresh petition. The grounds raised in the second petition were identical to those available earlier, and no new fact or development had been brought on record.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had approached the Court after a gap of more than seven months during which he had allegedly evaded the process of law. Such conduct, combined with repetitive filing of petitions seeking the same relief, was viewed as an attempt to misuse judicial process.
The Court strongly criticised the practice of filing successive petitions without new circumstances, describing it as forum shopping and procedural adventurism. It observed that the sanctity of the judicial process depends upon the principle of finality of orders and warned that repetitive litigation undermines public faith in the justice system.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition holding that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown after withdrawal of the earlier petition. Finding the petition to be an abuse of the process of court, the Court imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and remitted to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.