Second anticipatory bail application rejected absent changed circumstances after earlier rejection on merits.

The applicant, Taruna Nishad, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 124/2026 registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in concert with co-accused Kailash Sahu, induced the complainant to pay money on the false promise of securing his appointment as a police constable.

The complainant transferred an aggregate amount of ₹1,76,980 through PhonePe to the accounts or mobile numbers of the applicant and co-accused; neither the promised employment was arranged nor the money refunded.

Similar allegations were made by other persons allegedly deceived on the pretext of securing government employment.

The applicant’s first anticipatory-bail application had been rejected on merits by the High Court on 30 June 2026 in MCRCA No. 970/2026.

In the second application, she relied on the documentary and electronic nature of the evidence, the delay between the alleged transactions and registration of the FIR, and the alleged repayment of approximately ₹70,500 to the complainant.

The State opposed the application on the ground that the earlier application had already been rejected on merits and that the allegations disclosed cheating in concert with the co-accused.

Whether the second application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS was maintainable and warranted reconsideration in view of the alleged progress of investigation, documentary evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and partial repayment.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail despite the rejection of her earlier application on merits and the allegations of cheating the complainant and other similarly placed persons on the false promise of government employment.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court further applied the principle that a successive anticipatory-bail application, after an earlier application has been rejected on merits, can be entertained only upon a substantial change in circumstances or a fresh ground warranting reconsideration; mere repetition of grounds is insufficient.

The Court also considered the seriousness and nature of the allegations, including the alleged inducement, receipt of money, concert with the co-accused, and similar alleged instances involving other victims.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant relied on the documentary nature of the PhonePe and banking records, the delay in registration of the FIR, and the alleged repayment of ₹70,500.

However, it found these circumstances insufficient to overcome the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail on merits.

The earlier order had considered the allegation that the applicant acted in connivance with the co-accused to induce the complainant to pay ₹1,76,980 on a false promise of securing government employment, as well as the allegation that similarly placed persons had also been cheated.

Upon hearing the parties and examining the case diary, the Court found no good or new ground warranting reconsideration of the earlier decision.

The application under Section 482 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected, and anticipatory bail was denied to Taruna Nishad in Crime No. 124/2026 registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the BNS.