Husband Already on Bail Can’t Seek Anticipatory Bail Again After Murder Charge Added in Wife Poisoning Case: P&H High Court
Case Name: Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Brar v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-21018-2026
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused already released on regular bail remains in “constructive custody of law” and therefore cannot maintain a fresh anticipatory bail petition merely because a graver offence has subsequently been added during trial. The Court further held that in absence of any substantial change in circumstances, a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.
Summary: The petition before the High Court was the second anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused in FIR No.79 dated 17.05.2024 registered at Police Station Jaito Faridkot. Initially, the FIR had been registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, but during investigation the offence under Section 302 IPC was deleted and Sections 306 and 201 IPC were added. Subsequently, during trial, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were again ordered to be framed by the Trial Court.
The prosecution case arose from allegations made by the complainant regarding the death of Kulwinder Kaur, who had been married to the petitioner for approximately 16 years. It was alleged that the petitioner habitually subjected the deceased to cruelty and physical assault and was also involved in extramarital relationships.
According to the prosecution, shortly before her death, the deceased allegedly disclosed that the petitioner, along with his mother, forcibly administered poisonous substance to her with intent to kill her. The victim later succumbed.
The petitioner had earlier been arrested and was subsequently granted regular bail by the Trial Court on 05.08.2024 after Section 302 IPC had been deleted during investigation. However, after alteration of charge during trial and re-addition of Section 302 IPC, the petitioner apprehended arrest and sought anticipatory bail once again. His earlier anticipatory bail plea had already been dismissed by the High Court on 06.04.2026.
Before the Court, the petitioner argued that no prima facie case for murder was made out because no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. Reliance was also placed on statements allegedly showing that the petitioner was not present at the scene when the deceased consumed poison. It was further argued that he had never misused the concession of bail previously granted to him.
Opposing the plea, the State contended that there was no substantial change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition and therefore the second petition itself was not maintainable. The State further argued that once a graver offence is added, the appropriate course for the accused is to surrender and seek regular bail rather than invoke anticipatory bail jurisdiction.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court first observed that the second anticipatory bail plea had been filed barely days after dismissal of the earlier one and disclosed no fresh or substantial change in circumstances. On this ground alone, the petition was held to be not maintainable.
The Court further relied upon Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board and Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand to hold that a person already enlarged on bail continues to remain in constructive custody of law. Therefore, such a person cannot claim apprehension of arrest in the same manner as an accused who has never been granted bail.
The High Court also relied upon Sumit v. State of U.P. to reiterate that where graver non-bailable offences are subsequently added, the accused must ordinarily surrender and seek fresh regular bail or the investigating agency may seek cancellation of bail or custody orders from the competent Court.
Holding that anticipatory bail was legally impermissible in such circumstances, the Court concluded that no ground existed for grant of relief to the petitioner.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition and held that an accused already released on regular bail cannot maintain a fresh anticipatory bail plea merely because a graver offence has later been added during trial.