Petitions for anticipatory bail

'Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception.  If new facts emerge, and the bail is rejected on certain grounds, conditions for both appeal/re-submission is possible.   The local advocate is more competent as he is aware of the reasons for such rejection..  

There is no limit for filing of petition for anticipatory bail with changed circumstances.

If the accused makes an application for anticipatory bail to the Sessions Judge and that application is rejected, he can make a subsequent application to the High Court. 

Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the aspect of consideration of subsequent bail applications and has held that subsequent bail application is maintainable if there is change in facts, situations or law.

These judgments are Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav [(2005) 2 SCC 42 : AIR 2005 SC 921] and State Of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao . [1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 : AIR 1989 SC 2292].

A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Gama v. State of U.P. [1978 Cri LJ 242] has held that fresh arguments in the second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected.
 

The proposition that subsequent bail application is maintainable on fresh grounds, facts and circumstances that may develop after dis missal of the previous bail application has been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v/s. Buddhikota Subha Rao [AIR 1989 SC 2292]. The Apex Court has observed that " once that applica tion is rejected, there is no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the factsituation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial Megha / P.H.Jayani 5/7 appa_1301_2018.doc one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cos metic changes which are of little or no consequence".