2024 (9) TMI 1706 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - prolonged detention - Whether the petitioner s extradition and the charges against him justify his continued detention without bail? - HELD THAT - In Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P. 1978 (1) TMI 171 - SUPREME COURT inter alia held that a subsequent bail application is maintainable only if it is supported by additional material further developments or new considerations arising after the earlier application. In State of M.P. v. Kajad 2001 (9) TMI 1129 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Courtinter alia held that while successive bail applications are permissible they must be predicated on changed circumstances. It emphasized that without a change in circumstances a second bail application would effectively seek a review of the prior decision which is not allowed under criminal law. Whether Section 467 IPC is made out or not will still need to be determined by the trial court at the stage of framing charges. A detailed examination of the facts should not detain this Court any further as the matter has already been examined in detail in CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 (3) TMI 1632 - DELHI HIGH COURT . This Court finds that there is no subsequent development or new material on record that would entitle the petitioner to bail. The grounds on which earlier bail application was dismissed still hold ground and there is no substantial change in the fact situation. Thus Court is of the considered opinion that merely on period of incarceration the accused cannot be admitted to bail as he is still a flight risk. However learned trial court is requested to expedite the proceedings. This Court finds that there are no new or fresh grounds in the current bail application. Furthermore there has been no substantial change in facts and circumstances concerning the merits of the case. The bail application is dismissed.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in light of the ongoing investigation and prolonged detention.2. Whether there have been significant developments in the case warranting a grant of bail in a successive bail application.3. Whether the petitioner's extradition and the charges against him justify his continued detention without bail.The detailed analysis of the issues is as follows:Issue 1:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and relevant case law on bail applications.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner had previously been denied bail and that there had been no significant developments warranting a change in the decision.- Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the petitioner's prolonged detention, ongoing investigation, and the number of accused in the case.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of bail law and the need for significant changes in circumstances for successive bail applications.- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for bail based on his prolonged detention, while the CBI contested the need for bail due to completed investigations.- Conclusions: The court dismissed the bail application, citing lack of new grounds and no substantial change in the facts justifying bail.Issue 2:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to precedents emphasizing the need for significant developments in successive bail applications.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reiterated the requirement for changed circumstances to support a subsequent bail application.- Key evidence and findings: The court considered the lack of new material or developments justifying bail in the current application.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles regarding successive bail applications and the need for fresh grounds.- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for bail based on the extradition and charges against him, while the CBI maintained that there were no new grounds for bail.- Conclusions: The court dismissed the bail application, finding no new or fresh grounds and no substantial change in the case circumstances.Issue 3:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the petitioner's extradition and the charges against him in determining the justification for continued detention without bail.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner and his extradition as factors justifying continued detention.- Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the allegations against the petitioner, including offences punishable with life imprisonment.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles regarding extradition, charges, and the seriousness of the offences in justifying continued detention.- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for bail based on the extradition grounds, while the CBI argued for continued detention based on the seriousness of the charges.- Conclusions: The court dismissed the bail application, finding no new grounds or substantial change in circumstances justifying bail.Significant Holdings:- The court emphasized the need for significant developments in successive bail applications and the importance of fresh grounds for seeking bail.- The court reiterated that mere prolonged detention or incarceration does not automatically warrant bail if there are no new grounds or changes in circumstances.- The court upheld the denial of bail based on the lack of new or fresh grounds in the current application and the absence of substantial changes in the case circumstances.In summary, the court dismissed the bail application based on the lack of significant developments, fresh grounds, or changes in circumstances warranting a grant of bail. The court emphasized the need for new material or developments to support successive bail applications and upheld the denial of bail in light of the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner's extradition.