The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the constitutional safeguard against double prosecution by granting anticipatory bail to an accused facing parallel proceedings under both the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for the same incident. This ruling clarifies that procedural duplication, even across different statutory regimes, cannot justify continued detention without scrutiny.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Deepak Singh, is accused in two separate cases arising from a single incident involving alleged poaching and illegal possession of wildlife parts in the Van Parikshetra Tamsar region of Sidhi district. One case was registered by the Forest Department as POR No.567/2013 under Sections 9, 2, 16(c), 39, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. A second case, Crime No.204/2024, was registered by the police under Sections 298, 299, 324(5), 331(3), and 305(d) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite differing statutory bases, both cases stem from identical factual allegations.
Procedural History
- 2024: Crime No.204/2024 registered by police; applicant granted regular bail by trial court
- 2025: POR No.567/2013 registered by Forest Department; applicant sought anticipatory bail to prevent re-arrest
- January 2026: Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of BNSS before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in the Forest Department case, arguing that prosecuting him twice for the same conduct violates the principle against double jeopardy and constitutes an abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused can be subjected to successive criminal proceedings under different statutes for the same factual incident, and whether such multiplicity justifies the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the two cases arise from an indistinguishable set of facts and that prosecuting the accused under both statutes amounts to double jeopardy in substance, even if not in form. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Sanjay and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, which recognize that multiplicity of proceedings violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the doctrine of autrefois convict. The counsel emphasized that the applicant had already been granted bail in the police case, making continued detention in the Forest case arbitrary and oppressive.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the application, contending that the Wildlife Protection Act is a special statute with stringent penalties aimed at environmental conservation, and that its enforcement cannot be curtailed merely because another charge sheet exists. It argued that the offences under BNSS and the Wildlife Act are distinct in nature, ingredients, and public interest implications, and therefore, dual prosecution is legally permissible.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of either charge but focused on the procedural anomaly. It observed that the two cases, though framed under different laws, were rooted in the same transaction, with no material distinction in the underlying conduct. The Court emphasized that Section 233 of BNSS explicitly prohibits multiple trials for the same offence arising from the same facts, and that the spirit of this provision must guide judicial intervention even at the pre-arrest stage.
"The applicant cannot be subjected to the trauma of two separate investigations and trials for the same incident, especially when one of them has already resulted in bail being granted."
The Court held that the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS is not merely a procedural relief but a constitutional safeguard against harassment. It noted that the power under Section 482 is inherent and expansive, designed to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. The Court further clarified that the existence of a special statute like the Wildlife Protection Act does not override the fundamental right against multiplicity of proceedings.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that dual prosecution for the same incident violates the principle against abuse of process and granted anticipatory bail, directing the applicant to comply with conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS. The trial court was advised to examine whether both cases arise from the same facts and, if so, consolidate or quash one under Section 233 of BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Double Prosecution Is Not Permissible in Substance
- Practitioners must now challenge parallel proceedings under different statutes if they arise from identical facts
- A bail application under Section 482 BNSS can be filed even if one case is already pending, provided the second is a duplication
- Courts must examine the substance of allegations, not merely the statutory labels
Section 233 BNSS Is a Procedural Shield
- Section 233 of BNSS now serves as a critical tool to prevent multiplicity, even before trial commences
- Judges must proactively identify overlapping cases and direct consolidation or quashing
- This ruling extends the scope of Section 482 to include pre-arrest protection against procedural harassment
Anticipatory Bail as a Remedy for Procedural Abuse
- Anticipatory bail is no longer confined to cases of arbitrary arrest or false implication
- It can be granted to prevent the cumulative burden of multiple proceedings arising from one act
- Lawyers should routinely plead Section 233 BNSS and Article 20(2) in bail applications involving overlapping charges
