The Patna High Court reaffirmed that a second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the absence of new grounds or changed circumstances, strictly following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021). This judgment solidifies the principle for all subordinate courts in criminal law matters within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR. MISC./54103/2025 of Vishanudeo Ram @ Vishanudev Ram Vs The State of Bihar |
| CNR | BRHC010747352025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Patna High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable without a change of circumstance or new ground? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable when there is no change in circumstances or new ground disclosed. The judgment relies on and follows the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021). The application was accordingly dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s reasoning in G.R. Ananda Babu (2021), barring repeated anticipatory bail pleas without fresh circumstances. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed his second anticipatory bail application after the first was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.09.2024. The present application did not state any change in circumstances or provide any new ground for consideration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Patna High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, may be cited as affirmation of Supreme Court precedent |
| Follows | G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs (2021 SCC OnLine SC 176) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that, as per Supreme Court ruling, no second anticipatory bail application is maintainable unless new circumstances arise or new grounds are presented.
- Lawyers must ensure that all relevant grounds are raised in the first anticipatory bail application.
- The judgment can be used to oppose repeated anticipatory bail petitions in the absence of fresh material.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioner’s first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
- On perusal of the present (second) application, the court found no disclosure of any change in circumstance or fresh ground in support of the request.
- The court expressly relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021 SCC OnLine SC 176), which bars entertainment of a second anticipatory bail application on identical grounds without any changed circumstances.
- Applying this settled principle, the High Court held the second anticipatory bail application not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought anticipatory bail for the second time.
- Did not present any new ground or changed circumstances.
Respondent (State):
- Opposed the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail petition.
- Relied on the absence of fresh circumstances.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Vishanudeo Ram @ Vishanudev Ram, had previously filed an anticipatory bail petition that was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.09.2024. Subsequently, he filed this second anticipatory bail application in connection with P.S. Case No.-475 of 2023, Bahera Police Station, District Darbhanga. The fresh application did not state any new ground or change of circumstances for reconsideration.
Statutory Analysis
- The court did not explicitly discuss statutory interpretation but applied the principle regarding maintainability of repeated anticipatory bail applications in the absence of new facts, as crystallized by the Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu (2021).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms the Supreme Court precedent on maintainability of successive anticipatory bail petitions.