Whether successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable?
Equivalent Citation: 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Cri. Appln. Nos. 3347 to 3349 and 3458 of 2006
Decided On: 07.12.2006
Appellants: Kamlesh s/o Dhirajlal Gandhi
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and another
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and another
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.R. Gavai, J.
B.R. Gavai, J.
Criminal - Maintainability - Anticipatory bail - Sections 438 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Applicants sought for release of Applicants on bail in event of their arrest in connection with crime for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Hence this Criminal Application - Whether successive Applications would be tenable for grant of anticipatory bail after withdrawal or rejection of earlier Application - Held, principle of res judicata is not applicable to criminal jurisprudence - Insofar as Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, successive Application on new fact situations or change in law could be entertained - Provisions of Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. are almost analogous - Since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, Court should lean against imposition of unnecessary restrictions on scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. especially when not imposed by legislature - Therefore successive Applications for anticipatory bail, after rejection of earlier Application, would be tenable in law - However said Application is tenable only when there is a change in facts situation or law which requires earlier view being interfered with or where earlier view has become obsolete - In that view of matter, present Applications were tenable in law - Petition disposed of.
Criminal - Entitlement for anticipatory bail - Whether Applicant was entitled to be granted anticipatory bail - Held, only ground on which present Applications were filed, after rejection or withdrawal of earlier Applications, was that charge-sheet was filed and that other Accused were already released on bail - Thus there was no change in facts situation which existed on date of withdrawal or rejection of earlier Applications and as on date since material which was available against present Applicants was same as was available on earlier occasion - Therefore it was held that merely because other Accused are released on bail it cannot be a ground to entertain subsequent Application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Criminal - Entitlement for anticipatory bail - Whether Applicant was entitled to be granted anticipatory bail - Held, only ground on which present Applications were filed, after rejection or withdrawal of earlier Applications, was that charge-sheet was filed and that other Accused were already released on bail - Thus there was no change in facts situation which existed on date of withdrawal or rejection of earlier Applications and as on date since material which was available against present Applicants was same as was available on earlier occasion - Therefore it was held that merely because other Accused are released on bail it cannot be a ground to entertain subsequent Application for grant of anticipatory bail.
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/03/whether-successive-anticipatory-bail.html
