Concealing Earlier Anticipatory Bail Petition Is an “Unpardonable Subversion of Rule of Law”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs on Litigant for Suppressing Prior Withdrawal
Case Name: Jagjeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 24 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-47044-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is legally maintainable even where the earlier petition was withdrawn, not pressed, dismissed for non-prosecution or rejected on merits. However, such a petition cannot succeed unless the applicant demonstrates a substantial and genuine change in circumstances arising after the disposal of the earlier petition. Mere repetition of previously available grounds or reliance upon a superficial change is insufficient.
An applicant seeking anticipatory bail is under an affirmative duty to disclose complete particulars of all previous bail petitions, the orders passed therein and any bail proceedings pending before another court. Suppression of an earlier petition becomes particularly serious where the subsequent petition is falsely described as the “first” petition.
The Court observed that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and equitable relief. Therefore, approaching the Court with clean hands and making a candid disclosure of all material facts is a mandatory condition precedent. Concealment of a previous bail petition undermines the integrity of bail adjudication, prevents the Court from examining whether circumstances have materially changed and amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.
The Court further held that although mere ownership of a vehicle does not automatically create criminal liability for an accident caused by another person, anticipatory bail cannot be granted solely on that consideration where additional allegations concerning the vehicle’s identity, use of different registration numbers and the owner’s possible knowledge or involvement require investigation.
Summary: The petitioner, Jagjeet Singh, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0004 dated 7 January 2026, registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 106(1), 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections 338, 345(3), 340(2), 339 and 61(2) BNS were subsequently added during the investigation.
According to the prosecution, Mani and her eldest daughter, Marjeena, had travelled towards village Lambhwali to sell balloons and spinners. After alighting from a bus and proceeding towards the village, they were struck by a white-coloured car allegedly being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver fled from the scene with the vehicle.
Mani was declared dead at the Civil Hospital, Bajakhana. Marjeena was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical Hospital, Faridkot, where she was also declared dead. Since neither the registration number nor the driver’s identity was initially known, the FIR was registered against an unknown driver and vehicle.
In a supplementary statement, the complainant identified the driver as Amritpal Singh, the petitioner’s son. The investigating agency identified the vehicle as a white Scorpio-N bearing registration number PB-91-7815. When its number plate was taken into possession, it allegedly displayed two different registration numbers—PB-91-7815 on one side and DL-08-CBJ-3176 on the other.
On the basis of the alleged use of different registration numbers and the circumstances surrounding the vehicle, further offences relating to forgery, use of a forged document and criminal conspiracy were added. The petitioner, his son Amritpal Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gora were nominated as accused.
The Sessions Judge, Faridkot, rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application on 2 March 2026. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court through an earlier anticipatory bail petition. After arguing the matter for some time and being confronted with the State’s status report, the petitioner withdrew that petition on 21 April 2026 with a statement that he would surrender before the Trial Court within seven days and apply for regular bail.
Despite the earlier order, the petitioner filed the present anticipatory bail petition without disclosing the previous proceedings. The petition was described in its headnote as the petitioner’s “first” anticipatory bail petition. It contained no reference to the earlier petition, did not disclose its withdrawal and did not annex the order dated 21 April 2026. The omission came to the Court’s attention through a report submitted by the Registry.
On merits, the petitioner argued that he had been implicated solely because he was the registered owner of the vehicle and the father of the alleged driver. He asserted that he was neither driving the vehicle nor present at the accident site and that no vicarious criminal liability could be imposed merely on account of ownership.
The petitioner further submitted that the FIR was initially registered for bailable offences and the subsequent addition of serious offences was an attempt to convert a road accident into a graver criminal case. He relied upon the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings, the release of the vehicle on supurdari and the absence of any allegation that he had personally used a forged registration number before a public authority.
The State opposed the petition, emphasising that the petitioner had deliberately concealed his earlier anticipatory bail petition and the undertaking given while withdrawing it. The State also submitted that material collected during the investigation connected the petitioner with the vehicle and the circumstances in which two different registration numbers were found on its number plate.
Relying upon Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 65, the High Court reiterated that successive anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable but require a substantial change in circumstances. Where the High Court has previously rejected or permitted withdrawal of an anticipatory bail petition, a Sessions Court cannot entertain a successive application for the same relief.
The Court found no material development after 21 April 2026 that could justify reconsideration. The present petition merely reiterated the grounds that were available when the previous petition was withdrawn. The petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle and his relationship with the alleged driver were already known, while the allegations concerning the vehicle’s dual registration numbers continued to require investigation.
The Court acknowledged that ownership alone would not establish criminal liability for the accident. However, the prosecution case was not confined to rash and negligent driving. It also involved allegations concerning the identity of the vehicle, the display of different registration numbers and a possible conspiracy. The role, knowledge and involvement of the accused in those circumstances remained matters of investigation.
Addressing the suppression separately, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement. It reiterated that every bail application must disclose previous bail applications and orders, pending bail proceedings, criminal antecedents and coercive processes such as non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings.
The Court observed that these disclosure requirements are not procedural formalities. Information concerning previous bail proceedings is essential for determining the true nature of a successive application and whether any substantial change in circumstances exists.
The Court was particularly critical of non-disclosure in anticipatory bail proceedings. Unlike an incarcerated applicant seeking regular bail, a person seeking pre-arrest protection ordinarily has sufficient freedom, time and access to legal assistance to verify the history of previous proceedings. Concealment in such circumstances could not be excused as an inadvertent omission.
It described the suppression as a deliberate and unpardonable attempt to subvert the rule of law. The Court held that judicial leniency in such cases would place a premium on falsehood and encourage litigants to misuse the bail jurisdiction by presenting successive petitions before the Court without disclosing previous adverse orders.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition both because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances after withdrawal of his earlier petition and because he suppressed the earlier proceedings while incorrectly describing the present application as his first petition.
The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, within four weeks. The amount was directed to be remitted to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali.
If the petitioner failed to deposit the costs, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to inform the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, who would recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and remit it through the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.