Gagan Sharma @ Rahul vs State Of Punjab And Another

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
1


106 106
106 106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026

Gagan Sharma @ Rahul
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November November 12 November 12 12, 2026 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 12 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 12 November 12, 2026 November 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Balwant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.



SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

nd
Present 2 petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0093 dated
04.04.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Civil Lines, District
Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Punjab.
The first plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
was dismissed on merits thereof, vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in
CRM CRM-M-64004 CRM CRM 64004 64004-2025 64004 2025 2025. 2025
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare
perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the
petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner has
been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused. Learned counsel
has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in
question. It has been urged that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the
alleged personal loan. Learned counsel has iterated that there is nothing
cogent material available no record to show complicity of the petitioner in
the alleged offence.
2.1. Learned counsel has further iterated that co-accused of the
petitioner, namely, Sukhdev Raj has been afforded the concession of
regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2023 passed in CR CRM-M-
CR CR
43807 43807-2023 43807 43807 2023 2023. 2023
2.2. Learned counsel has iterated that nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the
investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of
anticipatory bail is entreated for.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed short reply
by way of an affidavit dated 10.11.2026, in the Court today, which is taken
on record. Role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the said short reply, reads
thus:
10. Role of the petitioner: Role of the petitioner: That the deponent humbly submits that the Role of the petitioner: Role of the petitioner:
“
present petitioner Gagan Sharma @ Rahul has played a pivotal role in
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
3

commission of crime as all the fake documents of the co-accused
Sukhdev Raj which were submitted to the bank for grant of loan in
favour of the co-accused Sukhdev Raj were prepared by the present
petitioner Gagan Sharma @ Rahul. ”

Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply,
learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner by arguing that serious allegations have been leveled against the
petitioner. Learned State counsel has iterated that no material change of
circumstance(s) has been brought forth by the petitioner while preferring
the instant second petition, therefore, the petition in hand deserves to be
dismissed on this score alone. It has been, however, argued that considering
the seriousness of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for fair and effective investigation. Given the
severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the
petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if the petitioner is
enlarged on bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.
3.1. In compliance to the order dated 05.11.2026 passed by this
Court, learned State counsel has also filed compliance report by way of an
affidavit dated Nil, which is taken on record. It has been stated, in the said
compliance report, as under:
3. That it is respectfully submitted that in due compliance with the
“
aforementioned order passed in the present petition by this Hon’ble
Court, the Complainant-Respondent No.2-Mohit Khokhar has been
informed in writing vide letter bearing No. 2045-5E, dated 07.11.2026
with respect to pendency of the present petition as also the next date of
hearing fixed on 12.11.2026 before this Hon'ble Court. The written
notice served in this respect to the complainant-respondent No.2-Mohit
Khokhar is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/T for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court. ”

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
4

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by
this Court in a case titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3)
RCR(Criminal) 65 RCR(Criminal) 65, RCR(Criminal) 65 RCR(Criminal) 65 relevant whereof reads as under:
“ 11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles
emerge:
I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such
petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of
maintainability thereof.
II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-
prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to
succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently
required to show substantial change in circumstances and
showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not
suffice.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to
what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as
every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly,
this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the
Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail
petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive
anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are
pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite
such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words,
the cause for a Court having successfully
countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s)
ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order
passed.
VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-
prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no
second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be
entertained by a Sessions Court. ”

6. The earlier anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was
dismissed on merits thereof, vide a detailed order dated 11.02.2026 ( ibid )
keeping in the view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially
seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.
6.1. No substantial or material change in circumstance(s)
warranting reconsideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail by way of a
successive petition has been demonstrated. The earlier anticipatory bail
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
5

application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits vide order dated
11.02.2026, and the present petition is admittedly the second petition
seeking the same relief. Furthermore, the grounds and averments now
sought to be raised were well within the knowledge of the petitioner even
at the time of filing the earlier petition and, therefore, cannot be treated as
constituting any subsequent change in circumstances.
7. Indubitably, the first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail)
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on merits thereof on 11.02.2026.
It is well settled that second anticipatory bail petition seeking identical
relief is not maintainable, as per the jurisprudence on bail, unless there is a
substantial change in circumstances after the earlier disposal or withdrawal.
The grounds urged in the present petition appear to be the same as those
which were available to the petitioner at the time when the earlier petition
was dismissed on merits. In the absence of any new fact, material
development or change in circumstances, entertaining successive petitions
would amount to permitting repeated attempts for the same relief, which
cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, notwithstanding the submission
regarding the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds that the
present petition suffers from the vice of maintainability, as no material
change in circumstances has been demonstrated after the dismissal of
earlier anticipatory bail petition. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to
grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Furthermore,
there is no substantial change nay any change in circumstances which may
weigh in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for anticipatory
bail. Ergo , the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
6

8. There is another aspect nay vital aspect of the matter which
deserves to be addressed by this Court.
The sanctity of the judicial process is predicated upon the
principle of finality of judicial orders. While there is no express statutory
embargo against the filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail,
such a right is not an absolute charter for procedural adventurism . A
litigant who approaches the same Court for the same relief, absent any
material change in circumstances engages in a stratagem of attrition that is
less a pursuit of justice and more an exercise of testing the waters . Such a
practice constitutes a classic case of forum shopping, wherein the litigant
treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation. By
repeatedly knocking on the same door without a fresh cause of action, such
a litigant attempt to circumvent the hierarchy of the courts ignoring the
well-settled principle that a party aggrieved by an order must ascend the
judicial ladder rather than move horizontally in hopes of a more favourable
wind.
9. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand;
particularly the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and
the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court afresh for the same
relief after dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail plea without showing
any change nay substantial change in circumstance(s); this Court finds no
compelling ground to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition
is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63884 CRM CRM 63884 63884-2026 63884 2026 2026 2026
7

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.










(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 12 November 12, 2026 November 12 November 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment