P&H HC Rejects Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Man Accused Of Preparing Fake Bank-Loan Papers, Citing No Substantial Change in Circumstances

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

His earlier anticipatory-bail petition had been dismissed on merits on 11 February 2026.

In this second petition, he argued that he was falsely implicated, was not the beneficiary of the alleged loan, and that nothing remained to be recovered from him.

The State attributed to him the preparation of fake documents submitted to the bank for a co-accused’s loan and submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary.

The State also contended that no material change in circumstances had been shown.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for anticipatory bail.

Relying on Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 65, the Court stated that a successive anticipatory-bail petition is maintainable, including after an earlier petition was dismissed on merits, but ordinarily requires the applicant to establish a substantial change in circumstances; a merely superficial or ostensible change is insufficient.

Whether a change is substantial depends on the circumstances of the case, and a court granting successive relief must give cogent reasons.

The Court also treated finality of judicial orders as a governing principle and cautioned against repeated applications for the same relief without a fresh basis.

The earlier petition had been dismissed on merits, and the Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any substantial or material change since that decision.

The grounds advanced in the present petition were available when the earlier petition was considered and therefore did not constitute subsequent circumstances warranting reconsideration.

The Court further noted the seriousness of the allegations and accepted the State’s position that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation.

The petition was dismissed; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.