The Delhi High Court dismissed the fifth anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, proprietor of M/s Renuja Enterprises, accused in a case involving fraudulent transfer of RoSCTL export scrips worth ₹1.54 crore. The Court observed that multiple successive anticipatory bail applications were filed without any change in circumstances, despite earlier rejection and failure to comply with the condition of depositing ₹1 crore imposed in a previous order. Referring to precedents such as Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, the Court held that successive bail pleas are not maintainable once rejected by a speaking order. The petitioner’s conduct—non-cooperation with investigation, use of fabricated medical certificates, and proclamation as an absconder under Section 82 CrPC—disentitled him from any discretionary relief. Consequently, the anticipatory bail was denied.
Anticipatory Bail Application — Multiple Applications — Successive applications for anticipatory bail are not to be entertained, especially when the accused is absconding and not cooperating with investigations, and no significant change in circumstances or law has occurred since the rejection of earlier applications.
(Paras 60, 61, 63, 64)
Anticipatory Bail — Condition of deposit — While challenging a condition of deposit for anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court, the applicant was granted liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. Subsequently, the applicant’s application for modification and the main anticipatory bail application were withdrawn. The court noted that the anticipatory bail granted earlier had become non-est due to non-compliance with the deposit condition.
(Paras 25, 26, 43, 44, 56, 63)
Anticipatory Bail — Material Change in Circumstances — Dismissal of a bail application on merits means that subsequent applications can only be entertained if there is a material change in facts, situation, or law. New developments, further considerations, or additional documents alone do not constitute a material change in circumstances.
(Paras 36, 61)
Anticipatory Bail — Non-Cooperation and Absconding — An accused who is absconding and not cooperating with investigations, even fabricating medical records to avoid joining the inquiry, is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (proclamation of offender) disentitles the applicant to any bail.
(Paras 40, 41, 46, 47, 58, 59, 64)
Anticipatory Bail — Previous Disclosures and Investigations — The court found that the allegations against the applicant of fraudulently gaining money through transfers of scrips within his family-owned companies remained consistent. There was no change in circumstances in his favor. The court also noted that the applicant’s earlier conduct involved misrepresentation and concealment of facts. (Paras 56, 57, 58, 59)
Anticipatory Bail — Victim Status in Chargesheet — While the Investigating Officer’s initial reply to a protest petition stated the applicant was a victim and not involved in the offense, subsequent investigations and the applicant’s conduct led to a different conclusion. The court emphasized that the applicant’s original intention to portray himself as a victim was contradicted by his actions. (Paras 9, 15, 31, 34, 54)
Anticipatory Bail — Withdrawal of Applications — The court noted that the applicant had withdrawn previous bail applications and modification applications filed before the High Court, as well as an SLP before the Supreme Court. This pattern of withdrawal further weakened his current plea for anticipatory bail. (Paras 23, 27, 45, 56, 63)
Cr.P.C., 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation, and pre-arrest bail can hinder this process, reducing interrogation to a mere ritual and potentially allowing the suspect to conceal information. (Para 62)
Cr.P.C., 1973 — Section 82 — Proclamation of Offender — Execution of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. deeming the applicant an offender disentitles him to the grant of bail. (Paras 46, 59, 64)
Suresh Kumar Jain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), decided on : 10-11-2025