Second anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated; mere reliance on new documents is insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The present second petition has been filed by the petitioner-Bhisham Singh under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking pre-arrest anticipatory bail in FIR No.83 dated 20.07.2023 registered under Sections 354A of IPC (Sections 376(2)(n) and 511 of IPC was added later on) at Police Station Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, Haryana

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:

"To the SHO, Women Police Station, Ballabhgarh. It is requested that I Komal age 24 years, D/o Bhisham Singh is resident of B-608, Malbari County Section 70, Mujeri, Faridabad. My father forcibly tried to molest me while I was alone. We had gone to for purchasing material for our N.I.T. old shop and when we were taking meal, then he consumed liquor and sat near to me and while talking tried to kiss me and caught hold my hands, pressed towards the floor and tried to enter his hands into my shirt. I shouted and said "No" but he gagged my mouth by his hands and got my mouth shut. I got scared by this action of my father and I did not tell about the same to my mother but after some time, I told about this fact to my friend. My father was knowing about this friend of mine and he tried to pressure and disturb me by threatening me and asked me to forget my friend otherwise I was threatened to face dire consequences. When I got upset, I came to the police station. Thanking you. 9810926130 KOMAL daughter of Bhisham Singh B-608, Malbari County Section 70, Mujeri, Faridabad."

3. After the above said FIR came to be registered under Section 354A of IPC, investigation was carried out wherein statement of the victim was recorded before the investigating officer as also before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. & thereafter Sections 376(2)(n)/511 of IPC were added to the FIR in question.

4. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2024. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks to withdraw the instant petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn."

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 11.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further argued that there are material improvements in the stand/statement(s) made by the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. & the victim, by way of such material improvements, has referred to further incidents of assault. Learned counsel has further submitted that after the first petition was withdrawn on 08.02.2024, new documents/photos have come into the possession of the petitioner which provides fresh material and grounds for consideration as also for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition being non-maintainable as it is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail as also on merits thereof. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2024 before this Court and neither any prayer was made nor liberty was granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Learned State counsel, opposing the plea in hand on merits, has submitted that the petitioner has sexually assaulted her own daughter; the victim could not earlier come forward due to obvious family/societal pressure(s) & the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is pertinently required for an effective investigation in view of th