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

The applicants sought a second repeat application for anticipatory bail following the dismissal of their earlier applications in 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants defrauded the complainant, Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal, of ₹50 lakhs under the pretext of releasing a mortgaged property, which was later found to be non-existent or differently mortgaged.

The applicants contended that the dispute was a failed property transaction involving ₹20.70 crores.

Subsequent to the first bail rejection, the parties engaged in mediation in a related Section 138 NI Act case, leading to a settlement where the complainant received ₹71 lakhs from the applicants and withdrew his complaint.

The State opposed bail, noting that a reward of ₹5,000 had been declared and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were being initiated.

1. Whether a material change in circumstances exists following the rejection of earlier anticipatory bail applications to warrant a fresh consideration for bail.

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

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

It considered the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (and Section 482 of the BNSS) regarding the discretionary power to grant bail in apprehension of arrest.

Regarding abscondance, the court distinguished the precedent in *Salochna Prdi v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18200 of 2025], noting that while a "proclaimed offender" is generally barred from anticipatory bail, mere "proposal or initiation" of such proceedings without a final adjudication of abscondence does not ipso facto disentitle an applicant.

The Court found that the mediation and subsequent settlement in the cross-case under the Negotiable Instruments Act constituted a material change in circumstances.

It reasoned that the dispute was primarily documentary and commercial in nature, arising from property dealings.

The Court observed that since the parties had started settling debts and the complainant had even received substantial payments (₹71 lakhs) after the previous bail rejection, the necessity for custodial interrogation had significantly diminished.

Regarding the State's objection based on Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., the Court noted that the applicants had not yet been formally declared "proclaimed offenders" and their participation in mediation showed a willingness to engage with the legal process rather than evade it.

The applications were allowed, and the Court directed that in the event of arrest, each applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹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.