Justice Deepak Gupta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Director-General of Police (DGP) to examine why an accused, whose anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, remains unarrested. The court observed that the situation prima facie raises serious concerns about the investigation and efforts to secure the accused's presence.
Court Expresses Concern Over Continued Absence Despite Judicial Orders
The Bench noted that the accused had not been taken into custody despite the rejection of pre-arrest bail at three successive judicial forums. The FIR was registered on November 30, 2024, at the Economic Offences Wing, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, under Sections 384, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 120-B of the IPC for cheating and other offences. More than one and a half years have elapsed since the registration of the FIR.
Justice Gupta stated, "Appropriate corrective measures, if warranted, shall be taken in accordance with law to ensure that judicial orders are implemented in their true letter and spirit and that public confidence in the administration of criminal justice is not undermined." The court directed the Punjab DGP to examine the matter and ascertain the reasons for the apparent inaction in securing the petitioner.
Second Anticipatory Bail Petition Dismissed with Costs
The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the accused, imposing a cost of Rs 50,000. The court held that the completion of investigation and presentation of the final report did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of a prayer already rejected at three judicial forums. The petitioner's earlier plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court on December 16, 2024, followed by a detailed order of dismissal by the High Court on January 16, 2025, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on July 28, 2025. The petitioner also withdrew a petition seeking quashing of the FIR on January 30, 2026.
Justice Gupta observed, "It is a settled principle that a second or successive petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable only upon the disclosure of a substantial and genuine change in circumstances occurring after the rejection of the earlier petition." The court added that mere progression of the investigation or presentation of challan could not be treated as a fresh circumstance entitling an accused to re-agitate a prayer already declined.
Court Denounces Successive Bail Petitions
The Bench deprecated the growing practice of filing consecutive anticipatory bail petitions without any real change in conditions. Justice Gupta asserted, "This Court has repeatedly deprecated the growing tendency of litigants to file successive petitions seeking anticipatory bail without any real or substantial change in circumstances. Such repeated attempts not only amount to an abuse of the process of law but also result in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time." The court emphasized that judicial discipline and the principle of finality require that successive petitions be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent in this case.
Order to Forward to Punjab DGP for Examination
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Bench directed the forwarding of the order to the Punjab DGP. The DGP shall examine the matter and ascertain the reasons for the apparent inaction in securing the petitioner. The court also directed the petitioner to deposit the cost of Rs 50,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana, within two weeks. In the event of default, the authority is at liberty to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings in accordance with the law.
