Successive anticipatory bail is maintainable upon material change in circumstances and mediation-based settlement of financial disputes.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 288 of 2025 at P.S. Morar for offences under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged that the applicants fraudulently obtained Rs. 50 lakhs under the pretext of releasing a mortgaged property, which they later failed to do.

Previous anticipatory bail applications were dismissed on merits in August and September 2025.

The applicants filed these second/repeat applications citing a material change in circumstances: a successful mediation in a cross-case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the subsequent compounding of that case, and the transfer of Rs. 71 lakhs by the complainant to the applicants' accounts, suggesting an amicable settlement of the financial dispute.

1. Whether a second or successive application for anticipatory bail is maintainable in light of a material change in circumstances following the rejection of earlier applications.

2. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. (proclamation and attachment) creates an absolute bar against granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (or Section 482 BNSS).

The Court applied the principle that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable provided there is a "material change in circumstances".

It considered Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of the BNSS) regarding the discretion to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The Court also interpreted the precedent of *Salochna Prdi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18200 of 2025), noting that while the declaration of an accused as a "proclaimed offender" under Sections 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. generally disentitles them to discretionary relief, the mere contemplation or initiation of such proceedings without a final adjudication of abscondence does not act as a per se bar.

The Court observed that while the initial applications were rejected due to the seriousness of the fraud allegations, the current applications presented a significant shift: the parties had engaged in mediation and recorded a settlement in a related NI Act case.

The Court reasoned that since the complainant had transferred substantial sums (Rs. 71 lakhs) to the applicants after the previous bail rejections, the dispute now appeared primarily civil and documentary in nature, thereby reducing the necessity for custodial interrogation.

Regarding the State’s objection that the applicants were evading arrest and facing Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the Court distinguished the present facts from *Salochna Prdi*, finding no record that the applicants had been formally declared "proclaimed offenders."

Given the applicants' cooperation through legal mediation, the Court found the change in circumstances sufficient to warrant bail.

The applications were allowed.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, each applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.