The subsequent appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 is maintainable, but must demonstrate new grounds or changed circumstances to be considered on its merits.

JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Registry upon filing of this appeal pointed out default that the criminal appeal filed under the provisions of Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 by appellant has already been decided vide order dated 11.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 642/2021. Learned State counsel also, at the time of hearing of application, raised objection that when once appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 which was already disposed of, another criminal appeal would not lie.

3. Today this appeal is taken up for hearing for considering the objection that filing of another appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail would be maintainable or not and if it is maintainable, to consider it on merits.

4. Appellant, filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in crime bearing No. 261/2020, registered at police station AJK Raigarh (city kotwali, Raigarh) for commission of offence under Sections 186, 294, 353 of IPC including the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989.

5. Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, learned counsel for appellant would submit, that default as pointed out by the Registry with regard to filing of another appeal after disposal of appeal filed earlier is not proper. Appellant earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in an appeal bearing CRA No. 642/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2021. Learned counsel referring to provisions of Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 would submit that under this provision any order passed by a Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail is made appealable. Provision of Section 14A of the Act of 1989 is inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016. For grant of bail either anticipatory or regular bail, applications, before the Special Court, are to be filed under Section 438 or Section 439 of CrPC. Under the Act of 1989, there is no specific provision to file application for grant of bail before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court. He contended that repeated bail applications under Section 438 and Section 439 of CrPC are not barred. Person apprehending his arrest if filed an application for anticipatory bail under the provision of Section 438 of CrPC can repeat the prayer for grant of bail before the same Court on changed circumstances and similarly under the provisions of Section 439 of CrPC also the person arrested in any of the crime can repeat the prayer for grant of bail projecting the changed circumstances, if his earlier bail application is rejected. He placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 13 SCC 555 and submits that in this judgment it is held that principle of res judicata could not be operated in an application for bail. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1996) M.P.L.J. 662; Ramu @ Ramlal v. State of M.P. and would submit that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that there is no statutory prohibition contained in Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) barring application/petition under Section 438 and applying the same analogy when the appellant approaches the High Court seeking relief of bail either anticipatory or regular bail under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989, there cannot be any bar of filing another appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989. Hence, the default as pointed out by the Registry as also the objection raised on the part of State counsel is not sustainable.

6. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for ap