Successive Anticipatory Bail Fails Absent Real Change in Circumstances, with Prior Refusals and Suppression Proving Decisive

A successive anticipatory bail application was found not maintainable where no change in circumstances was shown after earlier refusals had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The alleged impersonation did not alter the prosecution case that the supposed transferor was fictitious, and a later payment by a co-accused was held irrelevant because criminal courts are not forums for recovery of money and such payment does not erase criminal liability. Suppression of the prior bail history before the Magistrate and Sessions Court further weighed against relief, so anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a successive anticipatory bail application was maintainable on the alleged change in circumstances after earlier refusals had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and whether such change justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The Court held that no real change in circumstances had occurred after the Supreme Court dismissed the earlier special leave petitions. The alleged discovery that one person had impersonated another did not alter the prosecution case that the supposed transferor remained a fictitious person. The subsequent payment of money by a co-accused was held irrelevant to bail, since criminal courts are not forums for recovery of money and such payment does not erase criminal liability. The Court also found that the applicant had suppressed the dismissal of the earlier bail proceedings before the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, which further weighed against grant of relief.

Conclusion: The successive anticipatory bail application was not maintainable on the asserted change in circumstances and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail, and the proceedings were finally concluded against him with directions regarding the conduct of the concerned judicial officers and investigating officer.

---