Anticipatory bail is a shield against arrest, not a licence to stay outside the reach of the court indefinitely. The Patna High Court order of 18 September 2026 in Md. Sakib v. State of Bihar makes the point with economy: an accused whose first pre-arrest bail application was rejected, and who then simply stayed away — neither surrendering nor seeking regular bail — returned with a second application and found the earlier history counted decisively against him.
The allegations
The FIR alleged a street assault with a rod: the informant's daughter was intercepted and struck, suffering an injury to her eye, and when the informant attempted to intervene she sustained fractures to her hand. The offences invoked spanned the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's provisions on outraging modesty, hurt and grievous hurt, wrongful restraint, attempt to murder, theft, criminal intimidation and insult, read with common intention — the BNS successors to IPC Sections 354, 323, 325, 341, 307, 379, 506, 504 and 34.
The fatal history
The petitioner had approached the High Court once before. That application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed in February 2026. The expected sequence thereafter is well settled: surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail. Instead, the petitioner did neither, remaining outside the process for months before filing a fresh anticipatory bail application. Justice Rajiv Roy found his role in the incident significant and treated the earlier rejection, coupled with the failure to surrender, as a decisive circumstance against the grant of protection.
The settled grammar of successive applications
What can justify a second plea
Chargesheet filed and investigation complete; the injured's recovery or a genuine settlement; co-accused with identical roles protected; fresh material showing false implication — in short, a real change in circumstances since the first order.
What cannot
The same facts reargued before a different Bench; the passage of time spent evading process; inconvenience of surrender. Evasion after a rejection is itself fresh material — against the applicant.
Why conduct weighs so heavily
Pre-arrest bail exists to protect persons apprehending arrest on accusations that may be motivated or exaggerated, while keeping them answerable to the investigation. The jurisprudence therefore prizes candour and submission to process. An applicant who treats a rejection as a signal to disappear demonstrates precisely the flight risk that the jurisdiction is designed to screen out. Courts across jurisdictions — and Delhi is no exception — routinely record non-surrender after an earlier rejection as conduct disentitling the applicant to the discretionary relief.
Practical notes
Treat the first anticipatory bail application as the best one: complete instructions, medical papers, and any settlement material should go in at the first opportunity, not be held back for a second attempt.
If the first application fails, take a considered decision quickly — surrender and regular bail is usually the path that preserves credibility and liberty alike.
Time granted to surrender is a concession, not a breathing space for further evasion; use it, and prepare the regular bail application before the surrender date.
Where circumstances genuinely change — chargesheet, settlement, parity — plead the change expressly and candidly disclose the earlier rejection. Concealment of a prior application is treated severely.
The Delhi angle
Applications under Section 482 BNSS in Delhi follow the same discipline: the Delhi High Court and the Sessions Courts routinely ask what the applicant did after any earlier rejection, and non-surrender is among the most damaging answers. This order is a current reminder that in anticipatory bail practice, conduct is evidence.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a second anticipatory bail application maintainable at all?
A successive application is not barred as such, but it must ordinarily rest on a material change in circumstances — completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet, settlement, or new material weakening the accusation. Mere repetition of the earlier plea, especially after months of evasion, invites rejection.
What offences were alleged?
The case was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Sections 74, 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2)/(3), 352 read with 3(5), broadly corresponding to IPC Sections 354, 323, 341, 325, 307, 379, 506, 504 and 34 — arising from an assault in which the informant's daughter was struck with a rod, injuring her eye, and the informant suffered fractures when she intervened.
Why did the conduct after the first rejection matter?
Because the anticipatory bail jurisdiction assumes a person willing to submit to the process of law. Having been refused protection in February 2026, the petitioner was expected to surrender and seek regular bail. His failure to do either signalled evasion, and the Court treated the earlier rejection and the intervening conduct as grounds against relief.
What options remain after such a rejection?
The Court granted four weeks to surrender voluntarily and seek regular bail, which the trial court will decide on its own merits. Continued evasion risks proclamation proceedings under the BNSS, attachment of property, and a separate offence — and it steadily worsens the eventual bail case.