9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges. 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger res integra that when successive applications are filed, there must be a significant development in the case. 4. In State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, it was inter alia held that in the successive bail application there has to be substantial change in the fact situation which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or of no consequences. In the case of successive bail applications the courts are required to act with restrain and circumspection. 5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, it was inter alia held that high Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. It was further inter alia held that since the above factors go to the root of the right of the accused to seek bail, non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry." 6. In the earlier Bail Application No. 2586/2021, this Court thoroughly discussed all the submissions in the context of extradition law and the order passed by the Dubai Supreme Court. After considering all the arguments made by both the accused and the CBI, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, inter alia, made the following observations: 39. From a perusal of the material placed on record, it is further discernible that the applicant never joined proceedings before the Court in Italy, and for that reason European Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against him. In India, open ended non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned Special Judge on 24.09.2015. On the basis of the warrant and at the request of CBI, a Red Corner Notice was issued in respect of the applicant by INTERPOL on 25.11.2015. As a result of the same, the applicant came to be arrested in Dubai. A request letter dated 19.03.2017 for extradition of the applicant was sent to the competent authority in UAE, and finally, on 05.12.2018, he came to be arrested by the CBI. Although, merely because an accused is a foreign national, bail cannot be denied as a matter of course, but at the same time this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was required to be extradited from the UAE to face trial in India. We, therefore, find no merit in the Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, we clarify that the present order shall not come in the way of the petitioner moving the trial court afresh for the grant of regular bail." 8. In Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527, 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. 9. In State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673, 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. 10. The core argument raised by the petitioner in this case was that he could only be tried for the offence for which he had been extradited. However, this issue was addressed by the Apex Court in its order dated 07.02.2023 in S.L.P. (Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
