IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Kuldeep Randhawa ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This is the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 72 dated 20.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 at Police Station Zira, Ferozepur.

2. The earlier bail petition bearing CRM-M-14733-2025 titled “

Kuldeep Singh Randhawa vs. State of Punjab”, was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.03.2025, which reads thus:

“The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0072, dated 20.06.2024, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition.

Prayer is accepted.

Dismissed as withdrawn.”

3. The instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail has now been filed after a gap of nearly 05 months of the withdrawal of the first petition.

4. On 25.08.2025, when the present case was taken up, the following contentions of the respective parties were noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court:-

“Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant oppose the bail petition on the ground of maintainability. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second bail petition and although the order of dismissal of first bail petition has not been annexed but he submits that it was withdrawn after arguing for some time. He seeks time to place on record the said order and also wants to argue on the point maintainability of the second bail petition in such circumstances.

List on 03.09.2025.”

5. The above issue was reiterated in the order dated 11.09.2025. As learned counsel for both sides submitted that the question of maintainability ought to be determined at the outset, arguments have thus been heard on the above preliminary objection.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present, second petition seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable when there is a material or substantive change in circumstances, which have a direct bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 30.01.2023 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-40916-2022), which recognises the maintainability of a subsequent petition where circumstances have materially altered. The said judgment, he submits, has been followed by a learned Single Judge in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-1880-

2025, decided on 16.01.2025).

7. It is contended on merit that although the initial allegation ₹

against the petitioner was that he had received a sum of approximately 15 ₹

lakh, however, he has already returned an amount of 22 lakh, including payments made after the withdrawal of the first petition and that too in the police station itself. It is further contended that the petitioner has not evaded his arrest at any stage; rather, the investigating agency never considered it necessary to arrest him even after withdrawal of the first petition for anticipatory bail. Counsel submits that between March 2025 and August 2025, the principal co-accused has since been arrested, another co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Thus, these developments constitute a clear and material change in circumstances f