A second petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable only upon a substantial change in circumstances; mere claims of ill health without supporting documentation do not constitute a substantive change sufficient to override a prior dismissal on merits.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. This is the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by petitioner, an accused in cross case DDR No.45 dated 20.04.2022 u/s 452, 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC arising out of FIR No.60 dated 04.04.2022 registered u/s 323, 336, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2. Apart from submitting that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, learned counsel contends that it being a case of version and cross version, it needs to be ascertained as to which of the parties were the aggressor. It is further the submission of learned counsel that unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the DDR itself raises doubt upon the genuineness of story putforth by complainant of the said DDR. During the course of submission, learned counsel fairly admits that the earlier petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed by this Court vide CRM-M-6526-2025 dated 01.04.2025. Since then petitioner, who has not been arrested, has been diagnosed with Cirrhosis of Liver as also is suffering from acute Diabetes. Ill heath of the petitioner, as per learned counsel is the only ‘changed circumstance’ necessitating the filing of second petition. Though, no document in support thereof has been placed on the case file, learned counsel however contends that petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the IO.

The prime question that needs adjudication, at this stage, is whether in the light of facts and circumstances of case as mentioned hereinabove, petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail as also whether the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable.

It is settled that second petition for grant of anticipatory bail can be filed only if there has been substantial change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the first one. In Babu Singh and others vs. The State of U.P. 1978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“…………………But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preciude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further, developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con.”

In Manjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab , 2023(3) Law Herald 2080, this Court has held as follows:-

“2. The question, therefore, which requires to be considered and answered is "whether a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the first one filed by the petitioner has been withdrawn?"

xxxx xxxx xxxx

12. We have already held that second/subsequent/successive anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable where such an application has been dismissed by the Court on merits by passing a speaking order. Further qua the anticipatory bail application, it can be said that once a first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stand withdrawn, a second or subsequent bail application would not be maintainable merely on the ground that some new inconsequential and cosmetic change in circumstances has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of co-accused or main accused or bail granted to co-accused, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illn