A second bail application necessitates a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier application was dismissed, maintaining judicial prudence.

ORDER

This is the second bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.4 in Crime No.291/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant had dishonestly and fraudulently obtained an amount of ₹42,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and his wife with a false promise to provide 12.5% interest and to return the amount on maturity of the deposit and thereafter failed to return the amount or pay any interest and thereby cheated the defacto complainant.

4. I have heard Sri. Paul Paulson T., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, she is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by her. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicant have been urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under of , the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police.

7. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre- arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier order. However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine as well. An accused must establish the change in the circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to maintain the application for pre-arrest bail for the second time. A material change in fact situation or law is sine qua non for a second application for pre-arrest bail. The three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inKalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav[(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3) SC = AIR 2005 SC 921 ] considered the legality and propriety of successive bail applications. It was held in paragraph 20 thus:

"Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a ch