Smt. Priya Rally vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable if there is a material change in circumstances. In the present case, the Court found that subsequent events, particularly the compromise initiated between the parties and the admitted monetary transfers after the rejection of earlier applications, constituted a material change. The Court noted that the dispute originated from property and financial transactions, and the subsequent mediation, compromise, compounding of the Negotiable Instruments Act case, and financial transfers reduced the necessity for custodial interrogation, especially as the transactions were documentary. Regarding the State's reliance on the Salochna Prdi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case, the Court distinguished it, stating that in that case, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated, and the accused declared absconding, which was not the situation here. The Court concluded that mere initiation of such proceedings without finality does not disentitle the applicants from seeking relief. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, circumstances, and subsequent developments, the Court was of the considered opinion that the applicants had made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants were directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not tampering with evidence, and not committing any further offences.

Facts

The petitioners, Manvendra Singh Parihar, Gautam Rai Rally, Gulshan Rai Rally, and Smt. Priya Rally, filed second repeat applications for anticipatory bail. Their earlier applications had been dismissed on merits. The case stems from a complaint by Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal, alleging that the applicants demanded Rs. 50 lakhs for releasing a mortgaged property, received over Rs. 50 lakhs in total, but failed to deposit the money with the bank and later threatened the complainant. The applicants claimed a property transaction with the complainant, alleging he paid Rs. 1 crore 40 lakhs against a total consideration of Rs. 20 crores 70 lakhs, and that a cheque issued by the complainant had dishonoured, leading to a pending case. The prosecution registered a crime under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The applicants argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the dismissal of their earlier bail applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail applications, warranting a fresh consideration by the Court, particularly in light of subsequent developments. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants contended that a significant change in circumstances had occurred. They highlighted that in a separate case filed by Gautam Rai Rally against the complainant for cheque dishonour (SC NIA Case No. 1870/2015), the complainant consented to mediation, which led to a successful settlement. Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compounded and withdrawn. Furthermore, the complainant, through his firms, transferred substantial amounts totaling Rs. 71,00,000/- to the applicants' bank accounts. They argued that these developments indicate the dispute is now purely civil and does not necessitate custodial interrogation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the applications, arguing that the applicants are involved in multiple complaints and allegations of financial irregularities, including GST evasion and income concealment. They contended that the earlier rejection of bail applications was based on the seriousness of allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation, and no exceptional circumstances warranting a change now exist. The State argued that the withdrawal of the Section 138 NI Act proceedings does not absolve the applicants of the allegations in the present case, and the monetary transfers were made merely to avoid being branded a defaulter. They also noted that arrest warrants have been issued against Gautam Rai Rally in similar cases.