1 2026:CGHC:2388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 84 of 2026 1 - Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur W/o Shri Arvind Uraon Aged About 33 Years R/o Government Service (Deputy Collector) Present Address- Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Department, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, C.G. Permanent R/o Churcha Colliery, Police Station- Churcha (Wrongly Mentioned As Charwa), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr.Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. Earlier, First anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court in MCRCA No.751 of 2023 on 10.10.2023. 2. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.50 of 2020, registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 of REKHA SINGH 2 the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that a written complaint was lodged by complainant against her on 30.04.2020 and an FIR was registered against her and co-accused Ashwani Tiwari. He would further submit that the applicant was placed under suspension and vide order dated 26.05.2020, a departmental inquiry was initiated. It is argued that after full- fledged departmental inquiry, the applicant was exonerated from all charges vide order dated 28.07.2021. He would argue that the Sub-Divisional Officer Police Wadrafnagar moved an application for grant of sanction of prosecution against the applicant. It is also argued that co-accused Ashwani Tiwari was granted bail vide order dated 20.06.2023. He would contend that the applicant is having three months pregnancy. He would pray to grant bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the prayer and submit that anticipatory bail is not a statutory right linked with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, successive pleas are not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9449/2021 and judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493. 5. The first bail application i.e. MCRCA No.751 of 2023 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.10.2023. The applicant 3 did not approach the competent Court for regular bail. This second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved after two years and two months without explaining the reasons for such delay. It is also not explained as to why the applicant did not approach the competent Court for regular bail or for grant of anticipatory bail. There are serious allegations with regard to Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Shamim Khan (supra) has deprecated the practice of filing repeat anticipatory bail application and held as under :- “The first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected by the High Court by an order dated 10.11.2020. There was no substantial change of circumstances placed on record while filing the second application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code and that came to be rejected by the High Court under the order impugned dated 02.08.2021. Even before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any change of circumstances to invoke the jurisdiction of filing second application under Section 438 of the Code before the High Court. We deprecate such practice of filing second application under Section 438 of the Code after the first being rejected. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to interfere in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 7. In the matter of Rajbahadur Singh (supra), the High Court of Allahabad held that the power to grant anticipatory bail does not 4 flow from Article 21 of the Constitution but it has been conferred by the Statute enacted by the Parliament whereas provisions contained in Section 439 flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The observation made in para 8 as under : “8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no substantial difference between Sections 438 CrPC (Anticipatory bail) and 439 CrPC (Regular bail), as regards the appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted. The only distinction is that in a case under Section 438, the person who approaches the Court apprehends that he may be arrested without any basis whereas under Section 439, such person approaches the Court after his arrest. Evidently the power to grant anticipatory bail does not flow from Article 21 of the Constitution but it has been conferred by the Statute enacted by the Parliament whereas provisions contained in Section 439 flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If bail application of the accused under Section 439 is dismissed once, he can move second and successive bail application on the ground of substantial change in factual situation between the earlier bail application and the subsequent one, but filing of second and successive bail applications on the basis of new argument and new twists on the same facts cannot be encouraged. Speedy trial is a Constitutional right of the accused provided to him by Article 21 of the Constitution. If first application of the accused who is in custody is dismissed on merits and the trial is delayed, the accused has a right to make second bail application on the ground of delayed trial. Section 439 relates to Constitutional right of the accused whereas Section 438 to his statutory right. The provisions of Section 438 should not be put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous accused.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the first bail application was dismissed on 10.10.2023 and the applicant remained in a state of slumber for a period of two years and two months and thereafter, 5 repeat application has been moved and sufficient reasons including changed circumstances have not been demonstrated properly, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this second bail application. Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant. The concerned Trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha