1. Is a person entitled to file a second application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without establishing any change in the circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first application filed by him for the same relief? This question arises for consideration here.

2. The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.442/2018 of the Balaramapuram police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Along with the third and the fourth accused in the case, the petitioners had filed an application for anticipatory bail as B.A.No.3213/2018 before this Court. As per the order dated 11.06.2018 in B.A.No.3213/2018, this Court granted pre-arrest bail to the third and the fourth accused in the case but rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for that relief. The petitioners have filed this second application for pre-arrest bail on 30.07.2018 (but the application was moved before this Court only on 14.09.2018).

3. The prosecution case is that on 26.03.2018, at about 22.00 hours, at the place Uchakada, the accused together wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attacked him with deadly weapons and made attempt to murder him. It is alleged that the first accused caught hold of the neck of the de facto complainant and pushed him down and beat him on the head with an iron lever stating that he would kill him. The first accused also beat the de facto complainant on the forehead and the face with the iron lever causing fracture to the bones. The second accused stabbed him on the right hand and the stomach with a weapon.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the report filed by the investigating officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are totally innocent and they have been implicated in a false case by the police at the instance of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel contended that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the petitioners have not pleaded or established any change in the circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the earlier application for pre-arrest bail filed by them.

6. An accused has right to make successive applications for grant of bail. But, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan : AIR 2004 SC 1866).

7. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav : AIR 2005 SC 921, the Apex Court has held as follows:

“Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application” (emphasis supplied).

8. In Aneesh v. State of Kerala : 2014 (1) KHC 633: 2014 (1) KLT 790, this Court has observed as follows:

“If the case put forward by the accused was considered on the merits and an application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as such, it may not be proper for that accused to apply again for anticipatory bail in the absence of any change of circumstances. Finality of orders passed by the Court requires that no party should be allowed to put forward similar contentions in successive applications. Unlike the civil proceeding, the rights of pa