Why Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected man’s pre-arrest bail plea despite ‘settlement’ in assault case

‘So-called settlement not voluntary’

• The only changed circumstance put forth by the petitioner is that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and have entered into a compromise.
• It is settled that a second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail can be filed only if there has been a substantial change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the first one.
• The court has examined the purported compromise produced along with the petition.
• Material on record and the conduct of the petitioner, who claims to be a worker of a political party, during the period between the dismissal of the petition and filing of the first petition raises serious concern.
• Despite the rejection of his first anticipatory bail petition and withdrawal of the second petition seeking similar relief, the petitioner was not arrested.

• Instead, he was allowed complete liberty and an unwarranted space by the investigating agency which enabled him to interact with, approach, and ultimately exert pressure upon the complainant party to sign the so-called compromise.
• From the sequence of events and timing of compromise, at least at this stage, it can be inferred that the so-called settlement is not a voluntary act flowing from free will.
• Rather, it appears to be an outcome of influence, intimidation by the petitioner and thus, it is evident that he has misused his position to influence/coerce the complainant.
• It also raises a serious question mark on the efficiency of the investigating officer.
• Viewed in the light of the factual scenario of the case, no ground is made out to grant the relief sought, for the so-called compromise deed is not a ‘changed circumstance’ warranting this court to take a different view.
• The petitioner has failed to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour entitling him for the grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Assault and vandalism

• The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in October 2025, wherein the complainant alleged that the petitioner, along with several others, forcibly entered his house late at night, assaulted him and another person, and vandalised household property.
• Medical records indicated that the complainant suffered a head injury, while the other victim sustained multiple injuries, including those caused by sharp-edged weapons.
• This was the petitioner’s third attempt to secure anticipatory bail. His first plea had been dismissed on merits, while the second was withdrawn.
• In the present petition, the accused relied on a compromise deed entered into with the complainant as a “changed circumstance.”