Second Anticipatory Bail Inadmissible Following Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directive to Surrender and Absence of New Merits

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

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.

It also directed

The Second Anticipatory Bail application was rejected.

01Facts

The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application regarding Crime No. 525/2024 involving allegations of a ₹15 crore fraud.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The 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.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

After the investment, the contract was never granted, and cheques issued for repayment were dishonored due to "stopped payment" instructions.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The applicant's first anticipatory bail application (MCRCA No. 1319/2024) was rejected on merits on 27.11.2024.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The applicant subsequently approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court via SLP (Crl) No. 3697/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2025.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

The Apex Court granted the applicant two weeks to surrender and reserved liberty to file a bail application thereafter.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.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.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

Principle 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.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

Statutory 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.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 506

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 238

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the first anticipatory bail application had already been rejected on merits.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

Although 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.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

Upon 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.

pp. 3-4 · ¶ 7

The Court noted the gravity of the offense, which involved a substantial sum of ₹15 crores and the creation of forged government documents.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

The Court reasoned that the non-compliance with the surrender order, coupled with the serious nature of the allegations, disentitled the applicant to discretionary relief.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

05Holding

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.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

The Second Anticipatory Bail application was rejected.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF