Compromise After Rejection of Anticipatory Bail by Supreme Court Is Not a Ground to Maintain a Second Anticipatory Bail Petition: Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

Date of Judgment: 08 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-33912-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a second anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained once an earlier petition has been dismissed on merits and the order has attained finality before the Supreme Court. The Court observed that a subsequent compromise between the accused and the complainant does not constitute a fresh circumstance warranting reconsideration of anticipatory bail. It further held that where the Supreme Court grants liberty to surrender and seek regular bail, filing another anticipatory bail petition instead of complying with that liberty amounts to an impermissible attempt to circumvent the judicial process.

Summary: The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had induced the complainant to pay ₹35 lakh on the assurance of sending his son to the United States. Instead of arranging lawful immigration, the complainant’s son was allegedly sent to Thailand and Dubai, while neither the promised visa was secured nor the money refunded.

The petitioners argued that after dismissal of their earlier anticipatory bail petition and subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court, the parties had entered into a compromise and, therefore, there had been a material change in circumstances justifying a fresh consideration of anticipatory bail. The State opposed the petition by contending that the earlier rejection had already attained finality and that the Supreme Court had only permitted the petitioners to surrender and seek regular bail. According to the State, the subsequent compromise did not dilute the seriousness of the allegations or justify a second anticipatory bail petition.

Accepting the State’s submissions, the High Court held that the alleged compromise did not create any new circumstance warranting reconsideration of anticipatory bail. The Court emphasised that offences involving immigration fraud and cheating have serious societal consequences and require effective investigation, including custodial interrogation where necessary. It concluded that the petitioners could not bypass the liberty granted by the Supreme Court by filing another anticipatory bail petition before the High Court.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition, holding that it was not maintainable in view of the earlier rejection by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. It ruled that the subsequent compromise between the parties did not constitute a material change in circumstances and could not override the finality of the earlier judicial orders. The Court further clarified that the observations made in the order would not prejudice the merits of the investigation or the trial.