Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Kirti Singh held that once first anticipatory bail application is denied on merits the second application for same relief cannot be entertained by introducing new circumstances, development or material.                     

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court held this in the case of Sikander Singh v. State of Punjab and Another. 

What was the Background of Sikander Singh v. State of Punjab and Another Case? 

• A First Information Report was registered on the following facts: 
  • Two people were shot: a complainant and his father 
    • The complainant was hit in the left side of his abdomen 
    • The father was hit twice: once above his right wrist and once in his abdomen 
  • The victims cried out for help ("mar ditta mar ditta") 
  • The attackers then: 
    • Fled from the scene 
    • Were shouting threats as they ran ("raising lalkars") 
  • After the shooting: 
    • The complainant's brother-in-law (Sukhjinder Singh) arranged transport 
    • He took both victims to the hospital 
    • Sadly, the father died before reaching the hospital 
  • Key witness: 
    • The complainant's brother-in-law witnessed the entire incident 
• The final report was filed under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against Pargat Singh and Nachhatar Singh (father and brother of petitioner). 
• An application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed and the petitioner was summoned to face trial by way of issuance of bailable warrants. 
• Now the proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC have been initiated against the petitioner. 
• Apprehending the arrest for offences under Section 302, 307 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed. 
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed the second petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• This second petition is before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The issue before the Court was whether second bail petition can be entertained when the first petition on the same facts has been dismissed. 
• The Court analyzed several case laws on this matter and held that once the first anticipatory bail application is denied the second bail application for the same cannot be entertained by making new arguments or twists or by introducing new circumstances. 
• Thus, the Court held that second bail application without any change in fact situation cannot be entertained. 
• The Court further held in this case that where non-bailable warrants have been issued and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC are underway the anticipatory bail should not be granted. 
• Hence, the Court held that in such cases the anticipatory bail would undermine the judicial authority and encourage non-compliance of legal summons and warrants. 
• Accordingly, the Court denied the relief under the second anticipatory bail petition.  

What is Section 482 of BNSS? 

• Section 482 of BNSS provides the direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. 
• This Section provides for a provision of pre arrest bail.  
• This provision was earlier found under Section 438 of CrPC. More on this can be accessed here. 
• Anticipatory bail: Important conditions and Forum (Section 482(1))

• The conditions that can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail (Section 482 (2))

• Consequences of grant of Anticipatory Bail (Section 482 (3)) 
  • If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail;  
  • and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1). 
• Exception to the grant of Anticipatory Bail (Section 482 (4)) 
  • This Section shall not apply in cases where accusation is made under Section 65 (Punishment for rape in certain cases) and Section 70(2) (Gang Rape on a woman under 18 years of age) of BNSS.

What are the Principles for Filing the Second Petition for Anticipatory Bail ? 

• Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 
  • The second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 
  • Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. 
  • Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Section Judge/Additional Sessions Judge. 
• Maya Rani Guin and etc v. State of West Bengal (2003) 
  • The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court held that entertaining second anticipatory bail would amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order passed by a Bench as the accusation remains unchanged. 
  • The Court answered the following question:  
    • Whether the applicant/accused can move second application for anticipatory bail in case his first application is rejected; if yes, in what contingencies before the same Court or to the superior court? 
  • The Court answered the above as follows: 
    • Under Section 438 CrPC a person can move to either High Court or Court of Session. 
      • In case a person chooses to move the Court of Session in the first instance and his application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 is rejected, he can again move the High Court for the same reason under Section 438 Cr. P.C. itself. 
    • where a person chooses to straightway move the High Court in the first instance and his application is rejected on the same set of facts and circumstances, he will not be entitled to move the Court of Session for the second time, but may invoke the extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court by seeking special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. 
    • A person will be entitled to move the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, for the second time. 
      • He can do so only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. 
      • However, he will not be entitled to move the second application on the ground that the Court on earlier occasion failed to consider any particular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to him was not agitated before the Court.