Successive anticipatory bail is maintainable upon material change in circumstances involving settlement and financial restitution.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail for offenses registered under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant, Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal, alleged the applicants fraudulently obtained Rs. 50 lakhs under the guise of releasing a mortgaged property that was not actually held by the bank.

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

In this second attempt, the applicants contended there was a material change in circumstances: a separate case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between the parties was settled through mediation, leading to the compounding of that case and the subsequent transfer of Rs. 71 lakhs from the complainant’s firms to the applicants.

The State opposed the bail, noting that a reward of Rs. 5,000/- had been declared and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were contemplated.

1. Whether successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable in light of a material change in circumstances following earlier rejections.

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

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

Regarding absconders, the Court distinguished the precedent of *Salochna Prdi v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2026), noting that while an accused declared as a "proclaimed offender" is generally ineligible for anticipatory bail, the mere proposal or initiation of Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. proceedings without a final adjudication of abscondence does not automatically disentitle an applicant from relief.

The Court further considered Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the compounding of offenses as evidence of an amicable settlement.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute was a commercial and property-related conflict involving documented financial transactions.

The Court found a material change in circumstances because, following the initial bail rejections, the parties engaged in successful mediation and the complainant transferred substantial funds (Rs. 71 lakhs) back to the applicants.

This conduct indicated that the dispute was largely civil in nature and the need for custodial interrogation was significantly reduced as the transitions were documentary.

Addressing the State's objection regarding the applicants' status, the Court held that since the applicants had not yet been formally declared proclaimed offenders through the completion of statutory requirements under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., the judicial discretion to grant bail remained intact, especially given the applicants' cooperation through the mediation process.

The applications were allowed, and the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one solvent surety.

The grant of bail was made subject to standard conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and a prohibition on leaving the country without permission.