Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed a second pre-arrest bail application filed by four petitioners in a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that there was no material change in circumstances from the time of the previous rejection of their applications. It further observed that the release of a co-accused does not automatically entitle the petitioners to anticipatory bail, particularly when their prior applications were rejected after due consideration of criminal antecedents and the nature of injuries sustained by the victim.
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the jurisdictional court and directed that any regular bail application moved thereafter shall be considered on its own merits, including the plea of parity.
Facts
The petitioners were accused in G.R. Case No. 684 of 2025 arising from Marshaghai Police Station Case No. 97 of 2025. Offences invoked against them included Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
This was the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. The first was rejected by the High Court on 12 May 2025. Petitioner No. 1 had a history of criminal antecedents, and the Court had previously denied pre-arrest bail to Petitioners 2 and 3 as well, citing the grievous nature of the injury caused and their criminal records.
The petitioners approached the Court again, claiming that in the meantime, a co-accused had been granted bail and that this constituted a change in circumstance warranting reconsideration of their bail applications.
Issues
- Whether the release of a co-accused amounts to a change in circumstance justifying grant of pre-arrest bail to similarly placed accused.
- Whether the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable after rejection of the first on merits.
- Whether the criminal antecedents and gravity of the offence bar the grant of pre-arrest bail in the present case.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners submitted that subsequent to the rejection of their earlier bail applications, a co-accused had been arrested and granted bail. They argued that this development constituted a change in circumstance that should be considered for granting them pre-arrest bail as well. They also reiterated that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation and that there was no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the application, arguing that no new or material change in circumstance had occurred since the rejection of the first anticipatory bail applications. The State emphasized that the earlier order had comprehensively addressed the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and the serious nature of the offence, and therefore, the present applications were liable to be rejected.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that while there is no absolute bar on filing successive bail applications, the same must disclose a material change in facts or circumstances. The Court held that the mere release of a co-accused cannot, by itself, be treated as such a change, especially when the prior order had considered all relevant factors including antecedents and the gravity of the injury.
The Court referred to its earlier order, noting that the allegations had been thoroughly scrutinized, and the petitioners’ roles, especially those with past criminal conduct, had been detailed in the judicial record. The prior rejection was not based on technical grounds but on merits.
Precedent Analysis
Although no Supreme Court judgment is directly cited in the order, the reasoning aligns with settled principles laid down in decisions such as:
- State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 — successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a change in circumstances.
- Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 — held that bail applications decided on merits require new grounds for fresh consideration.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 — emphasized the importance of balancing liberty with public interest, especially in pre-arrest bail.
Though not cited in the order, these principles underpin the reasoning of the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that:
- The previous bail applications had been rejected on merits after detailed examination.
- The seriousness of the injuries and the existence of criminal antecedents remained unaltered.
- The bail granted to a co-accused cannot be the sole ground for seeking parity, especially where individual roles and backgrounds differ.
- Since no new fact was brought forward, the petition did not warrant reconsideration.
The Court refused to interfere with the prior rejection and dismissed the application. However, it allowed the petitioners to surrender before the trial court, which would then consider their regular bail application independently and on merits, including on grounds of parity.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners in a criminal case involving multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court reiterated that in the absence of a material change in circumstance, the rejection of a previous application bars reconsideration. Nonetheless, the Court protected the rights of the accused by allowing them to apply for regular bail upon surrender.
Implications
This decision reinforces the principles governing successive anticipatory bail applications and reiterates that parity cannot be claimed mechanically. It sends a clear message that criminal antecedents and nature of offence will weigh heavily against grant of pre-arrest bail, and that courts will not entertain repetitive applications without substantial new grounds. The judgment also balances individual liberty with the necessity of custodial investigation in cases involving grievous harm and criminal history.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can an anticipatory bail application be filed again after rejection?
Yes, a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable, but only if there is a significant change in facts or circumstances from the time the earlier application was decided.
2. Does release of a co-accused justify grant of anticipatory bail to others?
Not necessarily. Courts assess each application on its own merits, and release of a co-accused does not automatically entitle others to similar relief unless parity is justified by facts.
3. What are the consequences of repeated criminal antecedents in bail applications?
Criminal antecedents weigh heavily against the accused. Courts are likely to deny anticipatory bail when the accused has a history of similar offences or poses a risk to public safety.
