TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a fresh anticipatory bail application was maintainable after repeated rejection of earlier applications and dismissal of the special leave petitions, and whether the circumstances relied upon by the accused constituted a genuine change in circumstances.
Analysis: A fresh application for anticipatory bail after earlier rejection can be entertained only on a showing of change in circumstances. The alleged developments did not amount to such change. The supposed discovery that the person described in the transaction was not fictitious but had impersonated another did not alter the core prosecution case, because the person named in the transaction still remained untraceable and fictitious in the relevant sense. The partial return of money by a co-accused also did not assist the accused, since a bail court is not a forum for recovery of money and repayment of cheated money does not erase criminal liability. The plea that the accused himself had been cheated was also not a new circumstance, and in any event the surrounding conduct prima facie supported the prosecution case. The record further showed concealment of the earlier bail history before subordinate courts, which weighed against grant of relief.
Conclusion: No change in circumstances was shown, and the fresh anticipatory bail application was not maintainable on merits. The relief was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: A second or successive anticipatory bail application after earlier rejection can succeed only on a real and material change in circumstances; concealment of prior refusals and repayment of alleged cheating proceeds do not constitute such change.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
