1. Is it legal and proper for a person apprehending arrest in a non-bailable offence, whose application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr. P.C.) was dismissed by the High Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may be, to approach the same court with successive applications seeking the relief without establishing any change in the circumstances? Is it proper on the part of the Court of Sessions to entertain a bail application filed by an accused after the dismissal of his previous application by the High Court? These questions of importance are raised in this petition.

2. Heard both sides.

3. This application by the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 559 of 2015 of Pandalam Police Station, is the third in succession. He, along with other accused, is involved in offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). There are specific allegations against the petitioner that he was armed with a dangerous weapon, viz., an iron rod and he unleashed attack on the de facto complainant causing serious injuries.

4. The petitioner, along with other accused in the crime approached this Court for the first time with a bail application, B.A. No. 2905 of 2015, seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. This Court, vide order dated 01.06.2015, considered the merit of the application elaborately and found that this petitioner and some other accused were not entitled to get any relief under Section 438, Cr. P.C. Prayers in that regard made by other accused had been allowed. Thereafter, this petitioner again moved this Court seeking a pre-arrest bail as per B.A. No. 3981 of 2015. By order dated 13.07.2015, this Court dismissed the application finding that there was no subsequent development justifying the claim. Now the petitioner has again approached this Court with the application for the third time without mentioning any special reason for considering his plea under Section 438, Cr. P.C. I have no hesitation to hold that the attempt of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. It amounts to a forum hunt. I am also of a definite view that such an application, if entertained, will bring in disrepute only to the justice dispensation system. There is no doubt in my mind to hold that this application deserves only a dismissal. Reasons for substantiating my view are stated in the succeeding paragraphs as I wish to pronounce the law on the point.

5. Brief legislative history of the relevant provision will be useful. Under the old Cr. P.C., there was no specific provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. It was the view of several High Courts that unless a person was under restraint, i.e. in legal custody, no bail could be granted. Therefore, the Law Commission in 41st report suggested for incorporating a provision for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as anticipatory bail). Law Commission took note of the fact that necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes getting them detained in jail. It was also observed that in recent times with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there exist reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, no justification could be seen in requiring him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. These are the observations made by the Law Commission while recommending the incorporation of Section 438 in the Cr. P.C.

6. Later, this provision underwent amendment by Cr. P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005. Sub-section (1) of Section 438, Cr. P.C. has been substituted by the new sub-se