No. You cannot simply keep filing anticipatory bail petitions until some judge finally says yes. On 20 May 2026, in Vasantha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that repeat petitions filed in quick succession, without any real change in circumstances, are an abuse of the court process.
Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak of Salem applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was registered against him. The Sessions Court rejected it. Two weeks later he filed again, with the same facts and the same arguments. That second petition was also dismissed. A friend then told him, “Just keep filing, sooner or later a different judge will grant it.” This article explains why that advice is wrong, and when you are actually allowed to approach the court again.
Anticipatory bail is governed by Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced Section 438 of the old CrPC when the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. A rejection is not a locked door forever. But a fresh petition is allowed only when there is a genuine change of circumstances. Repeating the same petition on the same facts is treated as an abuse of process, and any bail granted on such a repeat plea can be set aside.
Ask yourself one honest question before you draft a second or third petition: has anything actually changed since the last rejection?
The dividing line is the same in every situation. A new petition needs a new reason. A new judge is not a new reason.
In Vasantha v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 20 May 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran looked at a case where the accused had filed three anticipatory bail petitions across July, August and September 2025, all within a three-month window. An earlier Bench had already refused bail on 4 August 2025.
The Court made three points that matter to every citizen:
Because these safeguards were not followed, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order that had been granted on the repeat petition. The related quashing challenge in the matter was dealt with under Section 528 of the BNSS, the provision that carries the court's inherent powers.
Judges do not accept vague claims of change. A real change usually falls into one of these categories:
Wanting a kinder judge, framing the same argument in new words, or simply waiting a few weeks are not changes of circumstance.
Example. Kashvi Pathak of Coimbatore was named in an FIR. Her first anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court on 10 March 2026 because the investigation was still at an early stage. Instead of re-filing the same plea, she waited for the police to file the final report. When the report showed no recovery and no direct evidence against her, she filed a fresh petition on 2 June 2026, clearly disclosing the earlier rejection and attaching the closure material. The court accepted that circumstances had genuinely changed and granted relief. The change of facts, not a change of judge, won the case.
You can use the RTI Act, 2005 to obtain records that support a genuine change of circumstance, such as the status of an investigation, general orders, or procedural records held by a public authority, subject to Section 8(1)(h) which protects material that would impede an ongoing investigation. Knowing what the record actually says helps you decide honestly whether you have a new ground or not. For the full method of asking public bodies the right questions, see The RTI Playbook.
Yes, but only if there is a genuine change of circumstances. A second petition on the same facts, aimed only at getting a different judge, is an abuse of process under the Vasantha ruling.
There is no fixed number, but each fresh petition must rest on a real, changed circumstance. The Supreme Court criticised three petitions in three months on the same material as reducing the process to a gamble.
It means something on the record has genuinely changed since the last rejection, such as a closed investigation with no evidence, relief to a co-accused on the same facts, altered charges, or fresh documents. Wanting a new judge is not a change.
If you believe the rejection was legally wrong, move a higher forum. The High Court hears you under Section 482 BNSS if the Sessions Court refused, and the Supreme Court is next. Re-filing an identical petition in the same court is usually the wrong step.
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs anticipatory bail. It replaced Section 438 of the CrPC when the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024.
Yes. You must disclose every earlier petition and its outcome. Hiding a prior rejection is treated as suppression and can lead to your fresh petition being dismissed and any bail obtained being set aside.
This guide explains the law in plain language and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified criminal lawyer on your specific case.