Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Second Anticipatory Bail Plea, Holds Compromise Is Not a Material Change in Circumstances

Case Name: Harjinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-35150-2026

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a successive petition for anticipatory bail can be entertained only when the accused demonstrates a substantial and material change in circumstances arising after the dismissal of the earlier petition.

The Court ruled that a subsequent compromise between the accused and the complainant in a cross-version does not, by itself, constitute such a material change, particularly when the investigation remains pending. It further held that alleged procedural irregularities in the recording of general diary entries and the pendency of a co-accused’s petition seeking transfer of investigation involve disputed questions of fact and cannot ordinarily be examined while deciding an anticipatory bail petition.

The mere existence of a cross-case or cross-version also does not create an automatic right to pre-arrest bail. Each version must be independently assessed on the basis of the material collected during investigation.

Summary: The petitioners filed a second petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the former Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in a cross-version registered through GD No. 46 dated 13 November 2025.

The cross-version contained allegations under Sections 109, 125, 333, 305, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It arose from the same occurrence that led to the registration of the principal FIR for offences including murder under Section 103 of the BNS.

According to the prosecution case, Hari Singh, who later died, was allegedly attacked along with the petitioners and other members of his family by an armed group. The injuries sustained by Hari Singh proved fatal, leading to the registration of the principal murder case. A cross-version was subsequently recorded against the present petitioners and others.

The petitioners’ earlier anticipatory bail application had already been dismissed on merits. In the second petition, they relied primarily upon an alleged amicable settlement with the complainant in the cross-version. They submitted that the parties belonged to the same village, had resolved their dispute and that the complainant no longer wished to pursue the cross-version.

The petitioners also questioned the manner in which the cross-version was recorded. They argued that GD No. 45 stated that the allegations required verification, whereas GD No. 46, recorded on the same date and at the same time, abruptly reflected that verification had been completed and the cross-version had been registered. According to them, this discrepancy indicated procedural irregularity and mala fide conduct by the police.

It was further submitted that a co-accused had approached the High Court for transferring the investigation to an independent agency on allegations of police bias. The petitioners also contended that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus and did not attribute any specific injury or overt act to either of them.

The High Court observed that the earlier anticipatory bail petition had been dismissed after consideration on merits. Therefore, the petitioners were required to establish a fresh, substantial and material change in circumstances before the Court could reconsider the relief.

The Court found that the compromise relied upon by the petitioners was insufficient to reopen the issue of anticipatory bail. Since the investigation had not yet concluded, the settlement could not be treated as a decisive circumstance overriding the earlier rejection.

The Court also declined to examine the alleged discrepancy between the two diary entries or the allegations of bias in the investigation. It held that these matters involved disputed factual questions that could not appropriately be adjudicated in anticipatory bail proceedings under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The pendency of a separate petition by the co-accused seeking transfer of investigation was also found insufficient to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court reiterated that the existence of rival versions of the same incident does not automatically favour either side for bail purposes, as every version must be evaluated independently on the basis of the available investigative material.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition as being devoid of merit. It held that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any fresh or substantial change in circumstances after the dismissal of their earlier petition that could justify reconsideration of the relief.