The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that successive anticipatory bail pleas for the same relief, filed without a material change in circumstances, amount to forum shopping and a misuse of the process of court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition filed by a man accused of circulating a woman’s private photographs and videos on social media, holding that a litigant who files successive pleas for the same relief, without any material change in circumstances, engages in “a classic case of forum shopping” [Morrison Loyal alias Morison alias Nishu v. State of Punjab].
Justice Sumeet Goel heard the petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations against the petitioner are untested, and the observations of the Court do not express any opinion on the merits of the case or the investigation. The petitioner is presumed innocent.
The case
The FIR was registered under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The complainant alleged that her private photographs and videos were circulated on social media and that she was threatened with their circulation. The petitioner’s first anticipatory bail plea was dismissed on merits on October 1, 2026.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated because of a neighbourhood rivalry, that earlier inquiries had found nothing, and that the number used for the circulation was not his. As a change in circumstances, he said he had since supplied the phone’s password and lock pattern, and that he could not counter the Investigating Officer’s claim at the earlier hearing. The State submitted that no material change had been shown and that custodial interrogation was required.
What the Court said
Relying on Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana (2024), the Court held that successive anticipatory bail pleas are maintainable, but only where the applicant demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances. It found that the alleged failure to rebut the Investigating Officer’s claim at the earlier stage was not such a change, as the grounds were the same as those already considered.
Such a litigant “treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation.”
The Court observed that a party aggrieved by an order must ascend the judicial ladder rather than move horizontally in hopes of a more favourable wind. It also held that custodial interrogation was necessary and dismissed the petition.
Why the order matters
The order restates that a second anticipatory bail plea is not barred, but that it is not an occasion to re-argue the same grounds. The litigant must show something new in the facts or the law since the first order was passed.
It also signals that a failure to answer the prosecution’s case at the first hearing will not, by itself, count as a changed circumstance. A party who is dissatisfied with a refusal is expected to challenge it before the higher forum instead of returning to the same court.
Case Title: Morrison Loyal alias Morison alias Nishu v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-57958-2026]
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Appearances: Sukhjit Singh for the petitioner; Adhiraj Singh Thind, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State