Rajkumar Maurya @ Nickt vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.583/2025 registered at Police Station -Ghamapur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 79, 351(2), 296 of IPC and Section 9m & 10 of POCSO Act.

The first application filed by the applicant was withdrawn, as after hearing the matter at length the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.60144/2025. Though the earlier counsel now changed, the another counsel is arguing, that is the only difference in the circumstances. Counsel is not in position to point out what is the substantial change in circumstances and therefore, considering the fact that the FIR is filed about the molestation of the 6 years old child by the near family members and considering the seriousness of offence, the Court earlier also not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and therefore, the same is withdrawn. This repeated bail application is not required to be considered.

For that purpose, this Court is like to prefer some observations made by the Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in ABA No.5595/2025 regarding aspect of consideration of such successive bail application and that too for the anticipatory bail application. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of that application is required to be reproduce as under:

It is an admitted position that two anticipatory bail applications preferred by the petitioner, has already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 18.12.2018 and 26.11.2019 respectively. This petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. for quashing of entire proceeding which has also been dismissed as withdrawn. The medical report has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in A.B.A. No. 4304 of 2018 elaborately and the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to reject the anticipatory bail application.

Upon making a close survey of the section 482 of the BNSS, there could be no slim doubt that the words and languages employed in the Section do not even remotely foreshadow that application for anticipatory bail, could be harvested as there could be no revival of “reasons to believe” of apprehension of arrest in the subsequent application when the earlier application has suffered rejection.

Section 482 clothes a party with a right when he reasonably apprehends that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. This particular accusation, however, the petitioner may say, does not suffer from any variation from time to time and the new grounds cannot buttress such accusation. This accusation does not occur any change as the direction of the Court will inevitably follow from the accusation which still remains unimpared. It will be ligitimate to hold that the boundary of s. 482 is limited, if analyzed with s. 483 which is unlimited in its scope and its application. It is permissible for an accused to repeat his prayer for bail on new grounds under s. 483 of the BNSS. after rejection of his earlier bail as the language employed in s. 483 are, “that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail”. This suggest without any slender of doubt or ambiguity that the accused in custody charged with an offence, prima facie, has a legitimate right to repeat his prayer for bail at any time.

In the context, repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail after rejection by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction after invoking the power of review of the decision of earlier Division Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction may lead to a judicial anarchy about which caution has been sounded by the Supreme Court in Mahadolal v. Administrator General AIR 1960 SC 1930:—

“Judicial decoram no less than legal propriety forms the basis of “judicial procedure” and “if one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing it is the quality or certainty” and that “that quality would totally disappear if Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in the High Court start overruling one another's decisions”. It was observed further that the result would be utter confusion if a “Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decisions of another single-Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench” as “in such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgment of their own High Court.”

Considering the facts of the present case, when the Court after considering the merit was not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail, the same was withdrawn, there is no substantial change in the circumstances and considering the scope of Section 482 of BNS, this Court has to consider such application, if there is substantial change in circumstances is pointed out.

I am of the opinion that the successive bail application there is no valid ground to entertain the present application as there is no substantial change in circumstances and such present successive bail application is filed merely because the counsel for petitioner is changed, which is not a good ground to consider this second anticipatory bail application.

On the contrary, it is found that the applicant is not cooperating in the process of investigation as his earlier bail application is dismissed on 27th January 2026 and still Investigating Agency could not investigate him in connect with present FIR.

Accordingly, the present application is found meritless and is dismissed.