Successive anticipatory bail is not maintainable without a substantial change in circumstances despite new legal arguments.

The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding an FIR involving various offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the IT Act, and state examination laws.

The prosecution alleges the applicant forged Biometric data in the Aadhaar database to facilitate a proxy candidate in a recruitment exam.

An earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed on its merits on February 12, 2026.

The applicant sought relief citing cooperation with investigations in other similar cases and interim protection granted by higher courts in separate FIRs.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

Successive bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances rather than merely new arguments on existing facts.

Doctrine from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar mandates specific arrest procedures for offenses punishable by less than seven years of imprisonment, but has limited applicability where charges include offenses punishable by life imprisonment, such as Section 338 of the BNS.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a "substantial change" in circumstances, noting that the dismissal of the first application already addressed the core merits of the case.

In evaluating the "new" arguments regarding Aadhaar regulations and previous relief in other districts, the court held that those instances were fact-specific and did not bind the court in the present matter.

The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations—specifically the manipulation of the Aadhaar database—characterizing the applicant as a "kingpin" whose custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the modus operandi of the conspiracy.

Since Section 338 of the BNS carries a potential life sentence, the court reasoned that the restrictive arrest guidelines of Arnesh Kumar did not apply.

The court held that the applicant did not deserve the "rare and exceptional relief" of anticipatory bail and the application was dismissed.