Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Rani Dudeja – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 2406 of 2017)
Decided On : 30-03-2017
Res Judicata - Criminal Procedure Code - The court set aside the rejection of a petition for anticipatory bail, stating that the principle of res judicata could not have operated in an application for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's petition for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court on the ground that a previous petition had been withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petition based on the principle of res judicata was not justified and set aside the order, reviving the petition before the High Court for consideration.
Issues: The issue was whether the principle of res judicata could be applied to an application for anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of res judicata could not have operated in an application for bail, especially when there was a change in circumstances.
Final Decision: The order rejecting the petition for anticipatory bail was set aside, and the matter was revived before the High Court for consideration.
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J.
Leave granted.
2. In the nature of order we propose to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary to issue notice, since we propose to send the matter back to the High Court.
3. The appellant approached the High Court with a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order dated 7.3.2017, the petition was rejected on the ground that the appellant had filed a petition earlier and the same had been withdrawn and, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter on merits.
4. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be appreciated. The petition was for anticipatory bail and the one which had been filed earlier might have been withdrawn in a given situation, without inviting the Court to consider the same on merits. On change of circumstances, when another application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed, the High Court should have considered the same on merits. The principle of res judicata could not have operated in an application for bail.
5. The order dated 7.3.2017 is set aside. Crl. Misc. No.M-7712 of 2017(O&M) will stand revived before the High Court. The matter be posted before the appropriate Court on 3.4.2017 for consideration, in accordance with law.
6. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
