13 October 2025 Legal Updates

SCOPE OF S.482 BNSS IS LIMITED, SUBSEQUENT ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEA NOT MAINTAINABLE AFTER REJECTION OF EARLIER PLEA: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Harish Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand

(b) Court:

• High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 9, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi (Single Judge)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Harish Kumar Pathak, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 154/2016. The case was initially registered under multiple IPC sections (354/341/342/323/325/307/504/506/34), and Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was later added on May 17, 2018.

Previous Legal History:

The petitioner had previously filed two anticipatory bail applications, both were rejected on December 18, 2018, and November 26, 2019, respectively. He also filed a criminal petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, which was dismissed as withdrawn on August 5, 2025. Chargesheet had been submitted on September 20, 2018.

Legal Issue

Can a fresh anticipatory bail application be entertained after rejection of earlier applications by a coordinate bench, without any new or changed circumstances?

Arguments

1. Petitioner's Contentions:

• Claimed a "new cause of action" warranted fresh consideration
• Alleged all accusations were false and concocted
• Argued he was exonerated in departmental proceedings
• Contended the medical report showed death was due to illness, not assault

2. State's Contentions:

• Chargesheet filed based on police and CID investigation
• Discrepancies in arrest records (deceased arrested on October 3, 2016, but shown as October 4, 2016)
• No signature of competent authority on station diary
• All grounds raised were already considered in previous applications
• No new grounds exist for fresh anticipatory bail

Court's Decision

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Reasoning

1. No Fresh Grounds:

• The Court found that all aspects raised by the petitioner had been considered in the earlier anticipatory bail applications, including the medical report which was examined "elaborately" by the coordinate bench in A.B.A. No. 4304/2018.

2. Distinction Between Sections 482 and 483 BNSS:

• Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail): Limited in scope—the "apprehension of arrest" and accusation remain unchanged. New grounds cannot support the same accusation repeatedly
• Section 483 (Regular Bail): Unlimited in scope—an accused in custody can repeatedly apply for bail on new grounds

3. Principle of Judicial Propriety:

• The Court relied on Mahadolal v. Administrator General, AIR 1960 SC 1930, emphasizing:
• Judicial decorum and legal propriety form the basis of judicial procedure
• Judges of coordinate jurisdiction cannot overrule each other's decisions
• Such practice would lead to "judicial anarchy" and "utter confusion"
• Certainty in law would disappear if coordinate benches started contradicting each other

4. No Changed Circumstances:

• Since the chargesheet had already been filed and all previous grounds were considered, there was no basis for entertaining a fresh application.

Key Legal Principles

• Coordinate Bench Principle: A single judge cannot overrule the decision of another single judge of coordinate jurisdiction; matters should be referred to a larger bench if disagreement exists
• Anticipatory vs. Regular Bail: Anticipatory bail applications are more limited in scope compared to regular bail applications—repeated applications require substantially new grounds