IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-10813-2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 Vinod Kumar Phogat ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.205, dated 24.08.2024, under Sections 8, 12 & 17 of the POCSO Act read with Section 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Mahender Garh, District Mahender Garh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the provisions of Sections 8, 12 & 17 of the POCSO Act have been invoked against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail in the High Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) had dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner by passing a detailed order on merits. The petitioner thereafter assailed the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.408/2025 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-9) and it was further directed that in case the petitioner surrenders and thereafter, applies for regular bail, then trial Court shall consider such an application as per its own merit, without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. After the dismissal of the aforesaid SLP on 15.01.2025, the petitioner again filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Court which has been dismissed with costs of 5,000/- on 19.02.2025 and after the dismissal of the aforesaid anticipatory bail application by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (under POCSO Act), Narnaul, the present petition has been filed again for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in view of the fact that earlier when the petition was filed for grant of anticipatory bail, various grounds were not taken which have been taken in the present petition especially that since the maximum punishment in the aforesaid provisions was less than 7 years, the provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. were required to be invoked in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another”, 2022(10) SCC 51. He further submitted that it was because of this reason that on fresh grounds the present petition has been filed for which there is no bar and the successive bail petition can lie. On merits, he also submitted that it is a case where the petitioner, who is an Ex. Serviceman and has retired as a Colonel from Indian Army has been falsely implicated and in fact there is a family dispute between two brothers and the allegations are that the petitioner had molested his own niece, who was minor of the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence and therefore, the present petition has been filed even though it is a successive anticipatory bail petition. He also submitted that when the petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Court, then reference was made by learned Sessions Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ G.R. Ananda Babu Versus State of Tamil Nadu and another” [2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 843] to the effect that a successive bail application would not be maintainable if earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merits unless there are strong and cogent reasons for entertaining the successive bail application whereas now Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal