Suppressing prior anticipatory bail and evading trial disentitle applicants to renewed anticipatory relief.

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that they had threatened a witness in a separate sessions case.

The petitioners submitted that they were innocent and that the proceedings in the sessions case had ended in their acquittal.

The State opposed relief, submitting that the petitioners had not appeared before the trial court despite earlier obtaining anticipatory bail and that a proclamation had been issued against them.

The court found that the petitioners had obtained anticipatory bail in an earlier petition, Crl.P. No. 201445/2019, allowed on 26 November 2019, but had not disclosed that order in the present petition, which they had described as their first bail petition.

The case had been registered in 2019 and the charge sheet filed in 2020.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail despite having omitted to disclose that they had previously obtained anticipatory bail in the same case.

2. Whether the petitioners’ failure to comply with the earlier bail conditions and their subsequent non-appearance before the trial court supported dismissal of the petition.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked for anticipatory bail; the petition also identified Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the corresponding earlier provision.

The alleged offence was under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, which the court noted was non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.

The court treated anticipatory bail as discretionary relief and held that the petitioners’ suppression of their earlier bail proceeding, together with their failure to comply with the earlier order and appearance obligations, disentitled them to relief in the present petition.

The court did not assess the merits of the allegation or the petitioners’ claim of acquittal in the separate sessions case.

It focused instead on the petitioners’ conduct: they had previously obtained anticipatory bail, failed to comply with its conditions and appear before the trial court, and then filed the present petition without disclosing the earlier order.

Given that the petition was brought after the case had been pending for years and a proclamation had been issued, the court concluded that the suppression of the earlier proceeding made the petition untenable, notwithstanding that the offence was triable by a Magistrate.

The court expressly left the merits of the petition untouched.