Important points:
An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail. The court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected-The court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which may persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications

ORDER :

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').

2. The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.1400/2017 of the Kasaba police station, Palakkad under Sections 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is as follows: On 06.04.2016, the petitioner filed an application before the Village Officer, Elappully-II Village for granting possession certificate in respect of the property owned by his mother and his brothers. Along with the aforesaid application, he also filed the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Palakkad regarding conversion of the property as dry land. Possession certificate was issued to the petitioner on the basis of this application. Subsequently, it was found out that no such order had been passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Palakkad and that the order produced by the petitioner in the Village Office was a fake and fabricated document.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The previous application (B.A.No.1911/2018) for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.6.2018. That application was dismissed on the finding that there were sufficient materials to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime and for the reason that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary to find out how he forged the document or from where he got it.

6. An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail. 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 may 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. 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 (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav: AIR 2005 SC 921).

8. The aforesaid principles have been highlighted by this Court in Vineeth v. State of Kerala (2015 (5) KHC 224) and Pandi v. State of Kerala (2018 (4) KHC 782: 2018 (4) KLT 249).

9. Is there any change of circumstance or situation in the case since the dismissal of the previous application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner ? Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and he was interrogated. Learned counsel would contend that since the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation of the case, he may be granted pre-arrest bail.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer after the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the finger prints of the petitioner were collected and the document allegedly forged by him was sent for forensic examination.

11. After the dismissal of the previous application for anticipatory bail, the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer. He was interrogated by the police. The investigating officer did not then find it necessary to arrest the petitioner. If custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary, the investigating officer would have arrested the petitioner and interrogated him and produced him before the jurisdictional court and, if necessary, sought detention of the petitioner in police custody. No such course was adopted.