Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(P&H) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Sachin Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-20629-2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

A second anticipatory bail petition is maintainable only upon demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances. Absent such change, repetitive filings for the same relief constitute an abuse of the judicial process, particularly when the offense involves serious allegations of forgery and requires custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) - Anticipatory bail - Successive petitions - Maintainability - A second or successive petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable in law, but it is essentially required to show a substantial change in circumstances; mere superficial or ostensible change does not suffice. (Para 6)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Custodial interrogation - Necessity - In cases involving the procurement and supply of forged educational documents to secure public employment, custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and essential to unearth the larger conspiracy and the source of forged documents. (Paras 4, 7, 8)

(C) Parity - Principle of - Applicability - The principle of parity does not apply where the degree of participation and the gravity of allegations materially differ between the petitioner and a co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. (Para 7.1)

(D) Judicial Process - Abuse of - Repeatedly filing petitions for the same relief without any material change in circumstances constitutes a stratagem of attrition and an abuse of the process of justice, warranting the imposition of exemplary costs. (Paras 11, 11.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a second petition for anticipatory bail regarding allegations of providing forged educational degrees to facilitate recruitment into a public force. The first petition had been dismissed on merits. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the initial report and that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The prosecution contended that the petitioner played a central role in a fraudulent mechanism and that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the source of the forged documents.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations were serious and struck at the root of institutional integrity. It held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since the dismissal of the previous petition. The court further noted that the petitioner's role was distinct and more culpable than that of the co-accused, rendering the plea of parity inapplicable.

Issues: The main issues were whether a second anticipatory bail petition is maintainable without a substantial change in circumstances and whether the petitioner is entitled to relief given the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive bail petitions require a substantial change in circumstances to be entertained; absent such change, repetitive filings are an abuse of the judicial process. The gravity of the offense, the need for effective investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover the chain of conspiracy outweigh the individual's liberty interest at the pre-arrest stage.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

Table of Content
1. overview of factual allegations and fir context. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both petitioner and state. (Para 3 , 4)
3. requirement of substantial change for successive bail. (Para 6 , 9 , 11)
4. necessity of custodial interrogation for investigative integrity. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
5. final order of dismissal and assessment of costs. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.1488 dated 22.12.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 of the IPC, 1860 (now Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the , 2023), at Police Station Sadar Hisar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the Commandant, HAP-DURGA-Ist Battalion, Hisar wrote to SP, Hisar for registration of criminal case against candidate Divya Kumari No.3354/OI dated 06.12.2022. It was alleged that 698 female candidates had been allotted to the battalion for appointment to the post of Constable. As per the reports from the Universities, it was found that candidate – Divya Kumari, bearing Roll No. 4203110724, Category-BC-B, had used bogus/fake educational documents (Degree of Graduation from Manav Bharti University, Himachal Pradesh and Degree of Post Graduation from State of Karnataka Open University, Mukthagangotri Mysure) for availing the job of Constable. Upon receipt of Original educational certificates and their verification report from the Universities, the said documents were found bogus. Accordingly, a formal FIR was got registered.

During investigation, Divya Kumari revealed that the said BA and MA degrees had been delivered to her by Sachin Kumar (petitioner herein) and had made her to appear for B.A. Examination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question, and he has been implicated in the present case after a delay of more than 2½ years and that too only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Divya Kumari, and such disclosure is not tenable in law. Learned counsel has submitted that it is highly unbelievable that in respect fake/ bogus degrees having been delivered to the co-accused, in the year 2016-17, an alleged transaction was made, in the year 2021 (after a delay of about 04 years) by the husband of the co-accused into the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in fact, in the year 2024, brother of the petitioner had died unfortunately, who used to run a Coaching Centre and said co-accused had dealings with the brother of the petitioner, but after the death of brother of the petitioner, co-accused chose to falsely implicate the petitioner, with some ulterior motive. Learned counsel has submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the same is already in the custody of the investigating agency.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that co-accused, namely, Divya Kumar has been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 16.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-12569-2024.

3.2. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by way of CRM-M-66199- 2025, and the same came to be dismissed on merits thereof, vide order dated 26.11.2025.

3.3. 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 bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed