Second anticipatory bail application is maintainable but requires substantial change in circumstances or new grounds.

The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerning Crime No. 54/2026 for offences under Sections 25 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that police seized button knives from one Nikhil Patel, who claimed he purchased them from Poornima General Store.

The owner of said store, Brajesh Sahu, informed police he procured the stock from the applicant.

The applicant’s first bail application was withdrawn on 26.02.2026 after the court expressed disinclination to grant relief.

The applicant contended that a 1972 notification regarding weapon size was inapplicable to sales from a shop (not a "public place") and that the police failed to comply with Section 41A Cr.P.C.

Whether a second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after the first was dismissed as withdrawn or rejected on merits.

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail based on the alleged non-applicability of the Arms Act notifications to private premises and non-compliance with arrest procedures.

The court applied the principle that a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable if there is a change in circumstances or if the earlier one was withdrawn without a merit-based adjudication, as held in *Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana*.

The court applied the principle that a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable if there is a change in circumstances or if the earlier one was withdrawn without a merit-based adjudication, as held in the Full Bench decision in *Imratlal Vishwakarma v. State of M.P.*

It referenced Section 25 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, alongside State Notifications from 1974 regarding prohibited sharp-edged weapons in public places.

Procedurally, it relied on *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* regarding mandatory compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable by less than seven years.

Procedurally, it relied on *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* regarding mandatory compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable by less than seven years.

The court noted that while a second anticipatory bail application is technically maintainable and res judicata does not strictly apply, such an application must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to avoid being a mere repetition.

The court noted that while a second anticipatory bail application is technically maintainable and res judicata does not strictly apply, such an application must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to avoid being a mere repetition.

The applicant argued that the 1974 notification was misapplied because a shop is not a "public place" per *Deepak Sen v. State of M.P.*

However, the court found that the WhatsApp chats and statements of co-accused prima facie indicated the applicant's active role in the illegal trade of prohibited knives.

The court observed that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation and had been evading the process despite the rejection of the first application.

The court determined that no "new grounds" were established, as the legal arguments regarding the notification and punishment limits were available during the first hearing.

The court dismissed the application but observed that the investigating authorities must follow the directives in *Arnesh Kumar* and *Satender Kumar Antil* regarding arrest procedures; if violated, the applicant may seek remedy before the Magistrate.

The petition was dismissed.