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2The applicant subsequently approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court via SLP (Crl) No. 3697/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2025.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. 8Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Indian Penal Code, 18605
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231
Original Court PDF
KANCHAN SHRIVASTAVAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
