2020 (10) TMI 1311 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - previous bail application was withdrawn after filing of chargesheet and this bail application is also filed after filing of chargesheet - It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the victim was drunk and fell down in the well but the complainant had got-up the story of throttle and thrown - offences under Sections 302 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - It would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR VERSUS RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV ANR. 2005 (1) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that this Court also observed that though the accused has a right to make successive application for grant of bail the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reaosns and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. In the case on hand the previous bail application was withdrawn after filing of chargesheet and this bail application is also filed after filing of chargesheet. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to piont out any change in the circumstances - Under the circumstances in absence of any change in circumstances no ground is made out by the petitioner as observed by the Apex Court. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Regular bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Sections 302, 201, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the judgment delivered by the High Court, the applicant filed a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302, 201, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's advocate argued that the victim fell into a well while drunk, but the complainant falsely implicated the applicant in a murder case. It was emphasized that there was no evidence of resistance on the victim's body, except for a nail injury on the neck. The defense contended that the lack of water in the victim's lungs indicated he was not killed as alleged by the prosecution, supporting the applicant's release on bail.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, highlighting that it was a successive application after a previous one was withdrawn. The prosecution argued that without any change in circumstances, the successive bail application was not maintainable. The court, after hearing both parties through video conference, referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the duty of the court to consider reasons for previous bail rejections and fresh grounds for a different view. The court noted that since the previous bail application was withdrawn post chargesheet filing, and the current application lacked any change in circumstances, the bail application was devoid of merit. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the absence of any new grounds or changes in circumstances as observed by the Apex Court.