IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail petition – Once first anticipatory bail is denied without there being any change in fact situation, second application for same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained by making new arguments.
(2) Limited purpose of statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is to prove contradictions.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Kirti Singh, J.—Apprehending arrest the petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.111 dated 01.11.2022, under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act 1959, registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran.

2. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing CRM-M-38379-2024 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.09.2024. Now the second petition under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed seeking the same relief.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there were various documents which were sine qua non for deciding the bail application of the petitioner which were neither referred nor placed on record and mentioned in the petition. The list of documents which were not referred to in the first anticipatory bail petition are as under:-

(a) Copy of the supplementary statement of the complainant dated 27.01.2023;

(b) Statement of the eye witnesses Balwinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 01.11.2023 his supplementary statement dated 27.01.2023 and his statement recorded during the investigation of the matter by the DSP;

(c) The order dated 03.06.2023, whereby concession of regular bail was granted to similarly situated co-accused-Pargat Singh.

4. Further regarding maintainability of second anticipatory petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in CRM-M-13315-2024 titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on 09.04.2024, Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2004 titled as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, decided on 18.01.2005, Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1977 titled as Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P., decided on 31.01.1978 and Civil Appeal No. 1415 of 1981 titled as Rafiz and another vs. Munshilal and another, decided on 16.04.1981.

5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by an order on merits and as such he ought to have filed a petition for regular bail by surrendering before the learned Trial Court and the second anticipatory bail after rejection of the earlier petition in the same case is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant argues that the documents cited by the petitioner were already known at the time of first anticipatory bail petitioner. Therefore, it has been contended that the second anticipatory bail petition is non-maintainable since it essentially argues an issue already addressed.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the elemental issue to be decided is as to whether once this Court had dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application, can the accused be permitted to file second application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS.

8. The legal literature and the decisional material on the above issue framed by this Court would show that the similar issue fell for consideration before the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Maya Rani Guin and etc. vs. State of West Bengal, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 774 wherein it was categorically held that entertaining second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or re-consideration of the earlier order passed by a Bench having coordinate jurisdiction, as the accusation remains unchanged. The accusation being the sine qua non, which remains the same, would not in any event indicate the revival of reasons to believe or apprehension of arrest which was already considered by the Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail. Ergo, the second application for anticipatory bail even if new circumstances arises after