High Court: 2nd anticipatory bail plea maintainable under BNSS

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that second or successive anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 of the BNSS is legally maintainable. Justice Sumeet Goel of the high court clarified that such petitions should not be dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability.

“Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn, dismissed as not pressed, dismissed for non-prosecution or was dismissed on merits,” Justice Goel asserted.

The court outlined that a petitioner-accused was required to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances for a second or successive anticipatory bail plea to succeed. “A mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice”.

Justice Goel, at the same time, clarified that exhaustive guidelines could not be prescribed to define a substantial change, leaving it to the judicial wisdom of the court concerned to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

“No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances, as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s),” the Bench asserted.

Justice Goel added cogent and lucid reasons were required to be recorded and should be clearly decipherable in the order in cases where anticipatory bail was granted while hearing successive petitions. A Sessions Court would not entertain second/successive anticipatory bail petition, once the plea was dismissed as withdrawn, as not pressed, for non-prosecution or on merits by the high court.

“An analytical perusal of BNSS would elucidate that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including those seeking anticipatory bail. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, a court is not logically empowered to import such prohibitions especially in the case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such an interpretation results into deprivation of rights,” Justice Goel asserted.