Kamaljeet Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
1


104 104 104 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
Kamaljeet Singh
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 04 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 04 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

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

Present:- Present: Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Present: Present:

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG Punjab.


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.307 dated
12.12.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police
Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural).
The first plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed
in CRM CRM CRM-M-9696 CRM 9696 9696-2026 9696 2026 2026. 2026
2. The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 15.85 grams of
Heroin.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
2

are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in
question. It has been urged that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in
question and has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused, namely, Amrik Singh @ Amrika, which,
per se , is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that,
apart from the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is not even an iota of
evidence available with the prosecution to establish the petitioner’s
complicity in the offence in question.
3.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was
earlier granted the concession of interim bail vide order dated 19.02.2026
passed in CRM CRM CRM-M-9696 CRM 9696 9696-2026 9696 2026 2026, with a direction to join the investigation. It 2026
has been pointed out that, as the petitioner had not joined the investigation,
therefore, vide order dated 19.03.2026, the petitioner was once again
directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation.
Learned counsel has urged that, the wife of the petitioner was pregnant and
the foetus was diagnosed with serious congenital anomalies, namely, Spina
Bifida with Meningomyelocele in the lumbo-sacral region, along with
indications of Hydrocephalus. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner was also falsely implicated in another FIR. Learned counsel has
contended that, owing to the aforesaid compelling circumstances, the
petitioner could not comply with the directions issued by this Court to join
the investigation, whereupon the aforesaid petition was ultimately dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 08.04.2026. Learned counsel has submitted
that, in these circumstances, the petitioner has once again approached this
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
3

Court by way of the present petition, seeking the concession of anticipatory
bail.
3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is
ready and willing to join investigation, and no purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned
submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
4. In oppugnation , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against
the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been iterated that the petitioner is
involved in drugs peddling. It has also been iterated that the petitioner had
not joined the investigation, as directed by this Court, and, thus, his earlier
anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Learned State
counsel has argued that investigation in the present case is still underway
and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It is therefore, submitted that
the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
4

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. ”

7. Apart from the present petition being second attempt for grant
of anticipatory bail, indubitably, serious allegations have been leveled
against the petitioner by the prosecution. The prosecution case, the material
available on record, as also the order whereby the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court,
prima facie , reveal that 15.85 grams of Heroin was recovered in the present
case. The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by his co-accused, namely, Amrik Singh @ Amrika. The
Court below has also noted that the petitioner is allegedly involved in drug
peddling.
7.1. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioner had failed to
comply with the directions issued by this Court to join the investigation,
despite having been granted the concession of interim bail in his earlier
anticipatory bail petition. The said petition was ultimately dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 08.04.2026. The fact that the petitioner failed to
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
5

join the investigation despite having been granted an opportunity by this
Court, and having been directed to do so on two occasions, cannot be lost
sight of. Such conduct raises a legitimate apprehension on the part of the
prosecution that, in the event of grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner may
evade the process of law and hamper the smooth and effective progress of
the investigation.
Keeping in view of the entirety of the factual milieu of the
case; particularly the seriousness of the allegations and conduct of the
petitioner in not complying with the directions issued by this Court on two
occasions; this Court is, prima facie , of the considered opinion that the
petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
7.2. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence
during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be
conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s
prayer for anticipatory bail.
7.3. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,
from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR.
7.4. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to
reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to
the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and
wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that
MAHAVIR SINGH
every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
6

& fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to
hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The
material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear
to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause
impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard
is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as
State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039
Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a
suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section
438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected
person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been concealed.
Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the
time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would
reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is
fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree
methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume
that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible
manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences
would not conduct themselves as offenders.
”

8. Indubitably, the first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail)
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, on 08.04.2026. 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 as withdrawn. In the absence of any new fact, development
or change in circumstances, entertaining successive petitions would amount
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
7

to permitting repeated attempts for the same relief, which cannot be
countenanced in law. Therefore, this Court finds that the present petition
suffers from the vice of maintainability, as no change in circumstances has
been demonstrated after the withdrawal 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.
9. 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.
10. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand;
MAHAVIR SINGH
particularly the nature of the allegations, conduct of the petitioner in failing
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-62063 CRM CRM 62063 62063-2026 62063 2026 2026 2026
8

to join the investigation despite specific directions issued by this Court in
his earlier anticipatory bail petition, as also the fact that he has once again
approached this Court seeking the same relief after having withdrawn his
earlier petition; 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
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.









(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment