Man Accused Of Taking Money For Fake Railway Jobs Denied Second Anticipatory Bail By Chhattisgarh HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances or a new ground sufficient to warrant consideration of a second anticipatory-bail application

The court held

The Court rejected the second anticipatory-bail application, holding that no changed circumstance or new ground justified reconsideration and that the material before it did not warrant anticipatory-bail relief.

01Facts

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 419, 420 and 34 of the IPC.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused collected money from job aspirants by promising railway employment, using a fictitious office and website.

¶ 1

The applicant’s first anticipatory-bail application had been rejected on merits on 13 July 2022.

¶ 2

In the present application, he claimed that he too had been defrauded by a co-accused and had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a repayment cheque was dishonoured.

¶ 4

The State opposed the application, relying on complainants’ statements implicating the applicant and submitting that no new ground had arisen.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances or a new ground sufficient to warrant consideration of a second anticipatory-bail application

¶ 2 · ¶ 7

ii.2. Whether, in light of the allegations and material in the case diary, the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023

¶ 1 · ¶ 6 · ¶ 7 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the statutory basis for seeking anticipatory bail.

¶ 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 419, 420 and 34 of the IPC.

¶ 1 · ¶ 3

In considering a successive anticipatory-bail application after an earlier application has been rejected on merits, the Court required a change in circumstances or a new ground warranting relief; no separate precedent was cited for this principle.

¶ 2 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 419 Section 34

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

04Reasoning

The Court found that, since rejection of the first application, there had been no change in circumstances and the applicant had raised no new ground for anticipatory bail.

¶ 7

It also noted that the applicant was named by complainants Sitaram Sahu and Awadh Ram Patel, whose police statements attributed active participation in the alleged scheme to him.

¶ 7

The alleged use of a fabricated railway website and office, and the calling of numerous aspirants for interviews, further weighed against granting relief.

¶ 7

The applicant’s assertion that he was also a victim did not persuade the Court to depart from its earlier decision.