Maintainability of Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications and Grant of Relief Based on Parity in Acquittal

The applicants (three women) were implicated in a 2009 FIR alleging offences under Sections 420 and 120B/34 IPC regarding an outstanding debt of approximately Rs. 2 crores in an iron trading business.

While two previous anticipatory bail applications were rejected or withdrawn in 2009 and 2016 respectively, the main accused persons (the applicants’ husbands) were arrested, tried, and subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court in 2011 on the grounds that the cheques were misdirected and lacked authorization.

The applicants, aged between 56 and 62, sought anticipatory bail citing the acquittal of co-accused, their long-standing cooperation without arrest for 15 years, and various medical ailments.

1. Whether a third anticipatory bail application is maintainable after previous rejections if there is a substantial change in circumstances.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with acquitted co-accused, lack of need for custodial interrogation, and medical conditions.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

Precedent of Rani Dudeja vs. State of Haryana, which establishes that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable upon a showing of a change in circumstances.

The Court also applied the principle of parity, where identical allegations against co-accused who have been acquitted warrant similar relief for remaining accused.

The Court reasoned that a significant change in circumstances occurred since the initial bail rejections, specifically the 2011 acquittal of the principal accused persons (the husbands) by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The Court noted that the allegations against the applicants are "identical and inseparable" from those of the acquitted co-accused, making the principle of parity applicable.

The Court observed that the FIR dates back to 2009; during the intervening 15 years, the applicants never absconded and have cooperated with the investigation, as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

Given that the loan amount was repaid, no further recovery was required, and the applicants suffer from serious health issues (hypertension, diabetes, cardiac issues), the Court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The MCRCA was allowed, and the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety each subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition on committing future offences.