Kuldip Singh @ Kalu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17950-2026 DECIDED ON: 06.04.2026 KULDIP SINGH @ KALU .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.229, dated 04.09.2022, under Sections 21/22/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

2.

On the very outset, learned State counsel submits that first anticipatory bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-30753-2024 filed by the petitioner was disposed of, vide order dated 15.07.2024, by recording as under:- "Present:

Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J (ORAL) 1.

After addressing arguments for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the instant petition, at this stage. 2.

Leave granted.

3.

Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage."

LAVISHA 2026.04.06 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-17950-2026 -23.

In the headnote of the present petition, it has nowhere been mentioned that petitioner had earlier filed a first anticipatory bail petition, and present one is the second petition filed by him for seeking anticipatory bail.

4.

Even in paragraph No.14 of the present petition, it is mentioned as under:- "14.

That no such similar petition has earlier been filed by the petitioner in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. No such or similar petition is pending before the Court of Session or any other Court at the time of filing of the petition." 5.

This Court finds that information furnished by the petitioner in the present petition is misleading, as it conceals the fact that present one is the second petition filed by him, and first petition had already been disposed of, as having been withdrawn. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 06.04.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.04.06 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh