Guru Pooja Mahant v. State of Punjab and Another

IN Guru Pooj

State of P

Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1under Sec to be refe bearing punishabl of BNS at

arrest/anti order by posed a c remained to interfer

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

oja Mahant chela Guru Jeet Rani

V/s Punjab and another

decision: 27.08.2026 Uploading : 27.08.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Kuldip Singh Chaudhary Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate fo ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the ction 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik S rred as 'the BNSS') for grant of FIR No.299 dated 12.09.202 le under Sections 115(2), 126(2) t Police Station Kharar, District The petitioner had earlie icipatory bail which was dismi coordinate Bench of this Cour challenge to the said order befo unsuccessful as the Hon'ble Sup re with the order passed by this C

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-48047-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondents SUMEET GOEL y, Advocate for the petitioner. AG Punjab. for respondent No.2. second attempt by the petition Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinaf f pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in ca 25, registered for the offenc ), 118(1), 109, 351(2), 191(3), 1 SAS Nagar (Mohali). er applied for grant of p issed on 08.12.2025 by a detai rt. Aggrieved, the petitioner h ore the Honble Supreme Court b preme Court found no good reas Court.

ner fter ase ces pre-led had but

of anticip

24.08.202

2.

06.09.202 herein), w vehicle be at Landra ground of 11-CK-83 complaina the said v complaina the head her. As a ground. T FIR furth kirpan, an further as thereafter who were The comp spot in a Kharar by to be regis

Thereafter, the present petitio patory/pre-arrest bail has been 26 before this Court. The gravamen of the FIR 25 the complainant namely Ma was returning along with her d earing registration No. PB-65-B an. At about 6:30 p.m., when f village Sawara, a red-coloured 302 came and stopped in front ant, the petitioner, namely Pooj vehicle carrying a sharp-edged ant out of her vehicle. Thereafte of the complainant with the sai a result thereof, the complainan Thereafter, other co-accused also her attributes specific acts to th n attempt to strangulate the com ssault involving a stick. It ha r several unknown persons arriv e allegedly exhorted by the peti plainant was thereafter given ki critically injured condition and y her driver. On these set of alle stered and investigation ensued.

on i.e. the second petition for gr n preferred by the petitioner R in question reflects that aniksha Mahant (respondent N driver – Sonu Khan in her Bole BK-7786 after completing her wo n she reached near the cremati Bolero bearing registration No.P of her vehicle. According to ja alias Umar Sakir, alighted fro weapon and forcibly dragged r, the petitioner inflicted a blow d weapon with an intention to k nt started to bleed and fell on got down from the vehicle and hem, including an assault with mplainant with an iron chain and as also been further alleged t ved at the spot in another vehic itioner to assault the complaina ick blows and allegedly left at d was taken to the Civil Hospit egations, the FIR in question ca

ant on on o.2 ero ork ion PB-om on kill h a d a hat cle, ant. tal,

¶3petitioner question o eunuch c succession further ite Jeet Rani to learned of false ca the Guru material petition b petitioner present at occurrenc original D material t been furth to the C examinati subsequen residence occurrenc material u spot and

Learned counsel for the r is innocent and has been fa on account of a long-standing d community concerning territori n to the spiritual seat i.e. the G erated that the petitioner is the , whereas the complainant belon d counsel, the FIR is a result of ases allegedly instituted against Gaddi. Learned counsel has e change in circumstances after by coordinate Bench of this Cou r has taken a specific plea of alib t her residence on 06.09.2025 a ce. In support of the said plea DVR, a pen drive containing C to the police along with a repre her contended that the electronic Central Forensic Science Labo ion. According to learned cou nt police enquiry establish that at the relevant time and was no ce. Learned counsel has argue unequivocally establishes that th corroborates the plea of alibi b

petitioner has iterated that alsely implicated into the FIR dispute between two factions of al rights for receiving alms a Guru Gaddi. Learned counsel h recognised successor of late Gu ngs to the rival faction. Accordi the continuing rivalry and a ser the petitioner to dislodge her fro emphasized that there has been the dismissal of the earlier b urt. It has been submitted that bi from the beginning that she w and was not present at the place a, the petitioner had submitted CCTV footage and other electro esentation dated 11.11.2025. It h c material was, thereafter, referr oratory, Chandigarh, for foren unsel, the CFSL report and the petitioner was present at h ot present at the spot of the alleg ed that this subsequent scienti he petitioner was not present at beyond a shadow of doubt & a

in and has uru ing ries om n a bail was e of an nic has red nsic her ged ific

constitute submitted and nothi custodial the factua it is conte because th earlier pet

¶4advance n by arguin second p substantia grounds a petition w on 08.12.2 to the pet that the i State coun the allega been nam counsel h statement injury to t of eviden

es a material change in circumsta d that the electronic evidence has ing remains to be recovered fro interrogation of the petitioner i al milieu of the case in hand. On ended that the present petition is he circumstances have materially tition. In oppugnation, learned St notice) has opposed the grant of ng that the present petition is no etition for grant of anticipator al change in circumstances, th and on merits. Learned State cou was dismissed by coordinate Ben 2025 and neither any prayer was titioner to file afresh. Accordin instant petition deserves dismis nsel, while opposing the plea in ations against the petitioner are sp med as the main/principal assailan has further iterated that the pro t of the injured complainant, wh the petitioner. Furthermore, the nce and cannot be considered

ances. Learned counsel has furth s already been seized and examin om the petitioner. Furthermore, is, therefore, no longer required n the strength of these submissio s maintainable as a second petiti y changed after the dismissal of tate counsel (on the strength f anticipatory bail to the petition ot maintainable, as it constitute ry bail, without there being a hereby failing both on procedu unsel has submitted that the earl nch of this Court by a detailed ord s made nor was any liberty gran ngly, the State counsel has argu ssal on this score alone. Learn hand on merits, has submitted t pecific and serious and that she h nt in the occurrence. Learned St osecution case is supported by ho specifically attributed the he plea of alibi is essentially a mat at the stage of anticipatory b

her ned d in ons, ion of ner s a any ural lier der ted ued ned hat has tate ead tter

Moreover as many dismissal

4.1. No.2 has has sough

¶5gone throu

¶6this Cour RCR(Crim

r, petitioner does not have clean as 16 other FIRs. Accordingly of the petition in hand. Learned counsel appearing raised submissions in tandem w ht for dismissal of the petition in I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to refe rt in a titled as Bhisham Sing minal) 65, relevant whereof read "11.

As an epilogue to principles emerge: I Second/successive Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 19 petition ought not to b maintainability thereof. II Such second/succ maintainable whether withdrawn/dismissed as no or earlier petition was dism III For the second/su succeed, the petitioner/ap required to show subst showing of a mere supe suffice. IV No exhaustive gui what would constitute su every case has its own u this issue is best left to th Court dealing with suc petition(s).

n antecedents as she is involved y, a prayer has been made for g for the complainant-respond with the learned State counsel a hand. unsel for the rival parties and ha case. er herein to a judgment passed gh vs. State of Haryana, 2024 ds as under:- o the above rumination, the follow anticipatory bail petition(s) filed un 973 is maintainable in law & hence s be rejected solely on the ground cessive anticipatory bail petition(s) earlier petition was dismissed ot pressed/dismissed for non-prosecut missed on merits. uccessive anticipatory bail petition(s) pplicant shall be essentially/pertinen tantial change in circumstances a rficial or ostensible change would idelines can possibly be laid down as ubstantial change in circumstances unique facts/circumstance. According he judicial wisdom and discretion of ch second/successive anticipatory b

d in ent and ave by 4(3) wing nder uch of ) is as tion ) to ntly and not s to as gly, f the

¶7preferred this Cour including petitioner Court, bu in the peti petitioner rejection coupled w establishe of occurre

refer here examining petition, t

V In case a Cour anticipatory bail petitio pertinently required to be such a plea being second cause for countenanced/entertained ought to be readily and c passed. VI Once a plea for a withdrawn/dismissed as no or dismissed on merits by anticipatory bail petition Court." Indubitably, the first petition by the petitioner has been dism rt on 08.12.2025 after consideri the nature of offence and t r, thereafter, challenged the said t the same was dismissed vide o ition in hand i.e. second petition r has reiterated the grounds p of the first petition on 08.12.2 with the enquiry conducted by th ed that the petitioner was not pre ence. In the considered opinion of ein to the earlier order passed g the alleged change in circums the coordinate Bench of this Co

rt chooses to grant second/success on(s), cogent and lucid reasons recorded for granting such plea desp d/successive petition(s). In other wor a Court having successfu d such second/successive petition clearly decipherable from the said or anticipatory bail has been dismissed ot pressed/dismissed for non-prosecut y the High Court, no second/success n(s) shall be entertained by a Sessi n(s) (for grant of anticipatory ba missed by the coordinate Bench ing the material placed on reco the stage of investigation. T order before the Hon'ble Supre order dated 12.01.2026. Thereaft n (for grant of anticipatory bail), previously taken (at the time 025) except that the CFSL rep he Police on the representation h esent at the spot on the alleged d f this Court, it would be apposite by this Court for the purpose stances. While considering the fi ourt had already taken note of

sive are pite rds, fully n(s) rder d as tion sive ions ail) h of ord The me fter, of port has day e to of

plea of t residence did not co not be co present at coordinate properly a including edged we interrogat

principall considera any fresh establishe occurrenc the prese occurrenc examinati material c occurrenc investigat by the pe nature wh

the petitioner that CCTV foot . However, the coordinate Benc over the actual place of occurren ncluded merely from such foota t the spot of occurrence when th e Bench also noticed that the assessed and that the allegations the allegation that the petitione eapon. The coordinate Bench tion was relevant for investigatio The petitioner now seeks y by relying upon the CFS ation of the material placed befo h material has been brought es that the petitioner could not ce. The plea of the petitioner tha ence of the petitioner at her re ce does not persuade this Co ion of such electronic materia conclusively excludes the presen ce, are matters which have to be tion and at the appropriate stage etitioner does not demonstrate a hich would justify taking a view

tage showed her presence at h h observed that the CCTV foota nce and that, at that stage, it cou age whether the petitioner was n he alleged incident took place. T e CCTV material was yet to s of the complainant were specif er had caused injury with a sha consequently held that custod on and recovery. to overcome the said findi SL report. However, a care fore this Court does not show t t on record which conclusiv have been present at the place at the CFSL report has establish esidence and not at the place ourt at this stage. The foren al and the question whether su nce of the petitioner at the place e appreciated during the course e of trial. The material relied up a change in circumstances of su different from the one taken by

her age uld not The be fic, arp-dial ing eful hat ely of hed of nsic uch e of e of pon

coordinate been uphe

¶8circumsta petition f dismissal petitioner discretion Furthermo the petitio the said preferred evident th over 08 m prolonged adjudicati every ind accused c undue proceedin justice. W can be pe Protracted for pre-ar act/behav

e Bench on 08.12.2025 particul eld by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou There is no substantial ch ances which may weigh, in favou for grant of anticipatory bail. E on this score alone. Moreove r from the process of law weig n in her favour under the provi ore, the first petition was dismi oner preferred an SLP before th order but remained unsuccessf after a gap of more than 08 m hat the petitioner has deliberate months. The conduct of the petit d period without any reasonable ing this second petition. The pr dividual in a manner which is eq chooses to employ irregular a delay, strategically aim ngs/investigation, it is tantamou While liberty and dignity of an in ermitted to subvert and cause de d absence, eluding the process of rrest bail, in absence of convin iour which calls for sympathy/in

larly when the said order has a urt. ange nay any glaring change ur of entertaining the instant seco Ergo, the instant petition deserv er, the prolonged evasion of ghs heavily against the exercise isions governing anticipatory b issed on 08.12.2025 and thereaf he Hon'ble Supreme Court agai ful. The instant petition has be months (i.e. on 20.08.2026). It ely evaded the process of law tioner in avoiding arrest for such e cause must be considered wh rocess of justice is meant to tr quitable and fair. However, if and convoluted tactics, includi med at frustrating law unt to an abuse of the process ndividual must be held high, no o evolution in the process of justi f law and abrupt repetition of ple ncing reason(s) is certainly not ndulgence of the Court. The hia

also in ond ves of ail. fter inst een t is for h a hile reat ing wful of one ice. eas an

of more th contumac the back petitioner

¶9been brou maintain urged by & decide

08.12.202 present pe the petitio

10.

(i) dismissed

(ii) shall not h as also the being infl

(iii)

August 27 Ajay

han 08 months on part of the pet cious. Therefore, the conduct of drop of the nature/severity o r, dis-entitles her from the grant o Furthermore, no fresh substa ught forward which would indic her second petition for grant of the petitioner in the present peti ed and view thereupon has b

¶25From the entire factual co etition, no fresh ground or circum oner to file and maintain the seco In view of the prevenient rati The petition in hand is d d. Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the e trial Court shall proceed furthe luenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

7, 2026

titioner (herein) is inexplicable n f the petitioner when examined of allegations made against of anticipatory bail. antial change in circumstances h cate that the petitioner is entitled f anticipatory bail. All the groun ition have already been consider been taken vide judgment da onspectus brought forward in mstance is made out so as to enab ond anticipatory bail petition. iocination, it is ordained thus: devoid of merits and is here /or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

nay d in has d to nds red ted ble eby ove ncy