Anticipatory bail is maintainable on a material change of circumstances including mediation and financial settlement.

The applicants (Manvendra Singh Parihar, Gautam Rai Rally, Gulshan Rai Rally, and Smt. Priya Rally) sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 288/2025 for offenses under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged the applicants fraudulently induced him to pay Rs. 50 lakhs to release a mortgaged property that was never actually deposited with the bank.

Earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed on merits in August and September 2025.

The applicants filed these second repeat applications citing a material change in circumstances: a successful mediation in a cross-case under Section 138 of the NI Act, which led to the compounding of that case and subsequent monetary transfers totaling Rs. 71 lakhs from the complainant to the applicants.

The State and Complainant opposed, citing a declared reward for arrest and the initiation of proclamation proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Cr.P.C.

1. Whether successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable in light of subsequent settlements and financial transactions between the parties.

2. Whether the mere proposal or initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. (proclamation for person absconding) ipso facto disentitles an applicant from seeking relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.

The Court applied the principle that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable if there is a "material change in circumstances".

It considered Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 482 of the BNSS) regarding the judicial discretion to grant bail upon apprehension of arrest.

The Court distinguished the precedent *Salochna Prdi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18200 of 2025), noting that while that case established that declared absconders are generally ineligible for anticipatory bail, such a bar requires the formal culmination of statutory requirements for proclamation rather than mere initiation.

The Court observed that while the initial applications were rejected due to the seriousness of the allegations, the subsequent mediation and the complainant’s transfer of Rs. 71 lakhs to the applicants constituted a significant shift in the landscape of the dispute.

The Court reasoned that since the dispute emanated from business and property dealings and the transactions were documentary, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Regarding the State’s objection concerning Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., the Court held that because the applicants had not yet been formally declared "proclaimed offenders" and since they were demonstrating cooperation through legal processes like mediation, the mere "contemplation" of such proceedings did not bar the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief.

The applications were allowed.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, each applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation/trial, no tampering with evidence, and no travel outside India without prior permission.