IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 04, 2026 HEENA DHAND ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jastej Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.211 dated 11.08.2025, under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, Annexure P-3.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, has pointed out that the petition is not maintainable as the earlier pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., CRM-M-61680-2025, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.11.2025. The order reads as under:

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

Permitted to do so.

Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that dismissal of the earlier petition as withdrawn cannot disentitle him to file the instant petition as the principle of res judicata will not apply. A reference has been made to the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana, 2017(13) SCC 555, in this regard. He further contends that after dismissal of the earlier petition, co-accused has been granted interim protection against any coercive step by the investigating agency, vide order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no.350 of 2026 titled Gurdip Singh v. The State of Punjab and others. This is a change of circumstance and entitles the petitioner to maintain the second petition.

4. Considering the submissions, this Court is of the view that the petition cannot be entertained since in view of the law laid down in Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald 2080, second pre-arrest bail application is maintainable only in case there is substantial change of material facts and circumstances of the case, after dismissal of the earlier petition. And bail to the co-accused cannot be taken to be a substantive change of circumstances. The view taken by the Court in this regard is as follows:

12. We have already held that second/subsequent/successive anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable where such an application has been dismissed by the Court on merits by passing a speaking order. Further qua the anticipatory bail application, it can be said that once a first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stand withdrawn, a second or subsequent bail application would not be maintainable merely on the ground that some new inconsequential and cosmetic change in circumstances has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of co-accused or main accused or bail granted to co- accused, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. It would also not be maintainable on a plea or ground that the Court on the earlier occasion failed to consider any particular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to the accused was not taken, agitated or pressed before the Court.

However, the second/subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable only if there is substantial material and substantive change in the fact situation and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events or in law.

6. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner in Rani Dudeja case (supra) is beside the point as it is not the case that principle of res judicata is being made applicable to the petitioner’s case. Instead, the petition is not being entertained only for the reason there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case after dismissal of the earlier petition.

7. Dismissed.

February 04, 2026 (TRIBHUVAN DA