A successive petition for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is only maintainable if the applicant demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances; in the absence of such change, and given the necessity of custodial interrogation for serious allegations, the court will decline to grant bail.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0522 dated 27.12.2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Sector 14, District Gurugram.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of anticipatory bail in the FIR in question, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.02.2026. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:

“1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.522 dated 27.12.2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector-14, District Gurugram; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition in hand with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, after giving better particulars/dates.

3. Ordered accordingly.”

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainants, M/s Radhey Shyam Contractor, a partnership firm engaged in construction and allied works with the PWD (B&R), through its partners Radhey Shyam Mehta and Deepak Mehta, along with M/s V.P. Yadav Contractor, a proprietorship firm carrying on similar business, submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, by stating that relying upon the representations and assurances made by the accused persons, the complainants transferred substantial amounts through banking channels and, on the insistence of the accused, also made certain payments in cash, as they were informed that such cash transactions were necessary to facilitate mining operations. The total amount allegedly paid by the complainants to the accused persons amounted to ₹2,44,00,000/-, inclusive of principal, cash component, interest, and agreed returns/profits.

It was further alleged that the accused persons executed receipts acknowledging the said amounts and assured the complainants that they would be inducted as partners in the mining business. However, despite repeated requests, the accused persons failed to execute the promised partnership documents.

Upon making inquiries, the complainants allegedly discovered that mining activities in Rajasthan had been banned pursuant to orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, contrary to the representations made by the accused. It was further alleged that cheques issued by the accused towards partial repayment were dishonoured, thereby causing significant financial loss and mental distress to the complainants, who are senior citizens. The complainants further alleged that the accused persons had acted with dishonest intention from the very inception, misappropriated the invested amounts, and also extended threats when repayment was demanded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6 in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that as per prosecution case, only Rs.14,00,000/- was transferred in the account of the petitioner, through RTGS, on 13.03.2018, and the petitioner has already transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each to Ankit Yadav and Vikas Mehta, through RTAGS. Learned counsel has further iterated that except the aforesaid, there is no specific overt act demonstrating dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence of issuance and dishonor of cheques pertaining to accused No.2 and the firm allegedly being operated by him. Learned counsel has submitted that the case in hand relates to civil or commer