The principles governing anticipatory bail differ from those applicable to regular bail applications.

1. This is the second application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 , for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant who apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.160/2025 registered at Police Station Basoda Dehat, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the commission of offence under Section 108 of BNS. The first anticipatory bail application was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 23/06/2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 26934/2025 in view of material available in the case diary.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 23/04/2025, the deceased Elma Pathan committed suicide by drowning in Betwa river. Pursuant to the investigation and recording of the statements, FIR in question has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was permitted to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY withdrawn without there being adjudication on merit, the instant second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. By referring to section 108 and the definition of abetment as provided under section 45 of BNS, 2023, he submits that allegation levelled against the applicant do not constitute offence of abetment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 1073 of 2023 dated 20/12/2024 and accordingly, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that earlier anticipatory bail application was permitted to be withdrawn, however, the said withdrawal order clearly record that in view of material available in the case diary, earlier anticipatory bail application was being withdrawn and, therefore, applicant cannot be permitted to re- argue the matter on merit. It is further submitted that not only there are statements of family members of the deceased, but also due to harassment and instigation made by present applicant, the deceased committed suicide. There are also mobile call details and evidence available on record, which clearly indicates that not only on the day before incident i.e. 22/04/2025, but also on the date of incident i.e. 23/04/2025 lastly upto 12.18 Pm, the deceased had talked with the present applicant on mobile phone and, therefore, at this stage, the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant cannot be countenanced and the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY applicant deserves to be dismissed.

5. I find much force in the objection raised by counsel appearing for the State even otherwise, from the material available in the case diary, at this stage, it is not open for this Court to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. The judgment of the Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the applicant is not required to be considered, at this stage.

6. Thus, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

7. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The application, therefore, stands rejected.