Facts
The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application regarding Crime No. 525/2024 involving allegations of a ₹15 crore fraud.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his father, K.K. Shrivastava, induced the complainant to invest money into a "Raipur Smart City" project using forged documents and a fake memorandum.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3After the investment, the contract was never granted, and cheques issued for repayment were dishonored due to "stopped payment" instructions.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The applicant's first anticipatory bail application (MCRCA No. 1319/2024) was rejected on merits on 27.11.2024.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 2The applicant subsequently approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court via SLP (Crl) No. 3697/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2025.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The Apex Court granted the applicant two weeks to surrender and reserved liberty to file a bail application thereafter.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of a second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS despite a prior rejection on merits and a specific direction from the Supreme Court to surrender.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Principle of judicial discipline regarding orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically that a second anticipatory bail application must be weighed against changes in circumstances or compliance with prior judicial directions.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Statutory provisions involving Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC, and Section 238 of the BNS.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Reasoning
The Court observed that the first anticipatory bail application had already been rejected on merits.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Although the Supreme Court had granted the applicant liberty to move a fresh bail application, that liberty was explicitly tied to the applicant surrendering within a two-week window from 20.03.2025.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Upon perusing the records, the High Court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the Apex Court’s direction to surrender before filing the second application.
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 7The Court noted the gravity of the offense, which involved a substantial sum of ₹15 crores and the creation of forged government documents.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The Court reasoned that the non-compliance with the surrender order, coupled with the serious nature of the allegations, disentitled the applicant to discretionary relief.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail due to non-compliance with the Supreme Court's surrender order.
The Second Anticipatory Bail application was rejected.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Original Court PDF
KANCHAN SHRIVASTAVAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in