P.482 BNSS | When Pre-Arrest Bail is Refuted on Merits, Second Objection is Inadmissible Without Any Change in Facts: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that after the first bail is rejected on merits and without any change in the facts of the case, the second application for the same relief under Section 482 of the BNSS cannot be granted by making a fresh provision. arguments or distortions by introducing new circumstances, developments, or materials.

Justice Kirti Singh While rejecting the second application for bail in a murder case, he noted that there had been no change in the circumstances and that warrants of arrest had already been issued against the accused, for which he could not be granted bail.

The Court further explained that the prior bail privilege is intended to prevent harassment through false imprisonment, but is not a remedy for deliberately evading legal process when non-bailable warrants are issued.

He added that granting advance bail in these circumstances would defeat the purpose of non-bailable arrest warrants, as they are intended to ensure the individual’s attendance and compliance with the judicial process.

These observations are in line with Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. It was held during the second bail hearing of Sikandar Singh, who was registered under FIR under s.

The court had previously rejected the request for pre-arrest bail on merits. However, the plaintiff alleged that there were various documents mentioned in the petition, including the statements of the complainant and eyewitnesses, which were indispensable for the determination of the bail application, which were not transferred and not recorded.

After hearing the arguments, the Court considered the following question: “Can the accused be allowed to apply for provisional bail for the second time under Article 482 of the BNSS after the Court rejected his earlier bail application?”

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Maya Rani Guin et al., (2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 774) it was held that the second application for interim bail was granted because the Charge remained unchanged, the earlier order was passed by a Bench having co-ordinating powers.

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner was summoned for trial under Section 319 of the Cr.PC and the non-bailable arrest warrants of the petitioner were issued in the months of August and September. Now proceedings under Section 82 Cr.PC have been initiated against him.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the case.

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Title: Sikandar Singh v. State of Punjab and other

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 320

Click here to read/download the order