2021 (8) TMI 1290 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of successive Bail Application - whether successive bail application can be entertained and a different view can be taken on the already existing materials when the earlier bail application was rejected on merit, merely because some documents/statements available in the case record were not taken into account? - HELD THAT - It is the settled position of law that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. The change of circumstances must be substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. Detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation on the merits of the case is to be avoided while considering an application for bail. No party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided mainly keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of the evidence, chance of absconding of the accused, chance of tampering with the evidence and also the larger interest of the public. This bail application, being a successive one moved within two months of the rejection of the earlier bail application before the learned trial Court without any changed circumstances and after its rejection, the petitioner has rushed to this Court again, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. The application for bail stands rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the successive bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Consideration of DNA profiling report and its impact on the case.
3. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.
4. Examination of the motive behind the crime.
5. Potential for tampering with evidence and absconding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Successive Bail Application:
The petitioner filed a successive bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after the earlier application was rejected by the High Court. The Court emphasized that successive bail applications are permissible only under changed circumstances, which must be substantial and not merely cosmetic. The Court cited the precedent from the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, stating that the Court must consider the reasons for the earlier rejection and identify any fresh grounds that warrant a different view. The Court concluded that the current application did not present any significant changes in circumstances since the previous rejection, thus deeming it as an attempt to seek a review of the earlier decision, which is not permissible.

2. Consideration of DNA Profiling Report:
The petitioner argued that the DNA profiling report, which was not considered in the earlier bail application, should be taken into account. The report indicated that the sources of the bone fragments did not yield any DNA profiles, and thus, no opinion could be furnished. The Court held that this report neither supported the prosecution nor the defense and did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances. The Court reiterated that the presence of such a report did not alter the overall assessment of the case.

3. Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence and Extra-Judicial Confession:
The Court examined the circumstantial evidence, including the extra-judicial confession of the petitioner before a laborer and the statements of various witnesses. The statements of Chaitanya Kunar, Amit Swain, and Sanjib Panda were considered relevant in establishing the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The Court noted that the petitioner was last seen with the deceased and made efforts to conceal his identity post the incident. The evidence suggested that the crime was premeditated and executed in a calculated manner.

4. Examination of the Motive Behind the Crime:
The motive behind the crime was discussed based on the statements of the informant and other witnesses. It was suggested that the petitioner had borrowed money and gold ornaments from the deceased and failed to return them when demanded. This financial dispute provided a prima facie motive for the crime, as the petitioner allegedly killed the deceased to avoid repayment.

5. Potential for Tampering with Evidence and Absconding:
The Court considered the potential risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence or absconding if released on bail. Given the serious nature of the accusations, the Court emphasized the importance of preventing any interference with the ongoing investigation and ensuring the safety of witnesses. The Court concluded that releasing the petitioner on bail could jeopardize the integrity of the trial process.

Conclusion:
The High Court rejected the successive bail application, citing the lack of substantial changes in circumstances and the serious nature of the accusations. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application after the examination of material witnesses. The observations made in the order were clarified to not influence the merits of the case during the trial.