The need for a substantial change in circumstances for successive bail applications and the limited impact of the period spent in custody and the framing of charges on the bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.577/2019 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323 and 341 of I.P.C. later on for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 450, 307, 302 and 120-B and challan for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323, 325, 341 and 120-B of IPC and Section 9/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of prosecution witnesses namely; Narendra, Kailash and Subhanta Devi, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has levelled any allegation against the present petitioner of inflicting any injury on the person of deceased or other injured persons. Learned counsel submitted that contents of FIR reveal that the incident occurred at the spur of moment without any premeditation. He submitted that as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, he has suffered no fracture on his head i.e. vital part of the body and as per opinion of the Medical Board, the possible cause of death was excessive hemorrhage and hence, no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Kadra Pehadiya & Ors. versus State of Bihar, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 939, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as he is in custody for more than a period of one year in sessions trial, the outer limit fixed therein. Referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830, learned counsel submitted that since charges have been framed in the present case after rejection of the first bail application, it amounts to change in circumstance entitling the petitioner to renew his prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel submitted that, even otherwise also, while appreciating the second bail application, this Court can reconsider the reasonings assigned by it while dismissing the earlier bail application. He, therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner absconded during investigation and hence, charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. came to be filed against him. They submitted that the petitioner was an active member of the unlawful assembly which murdered Virendra Singh and also inflicted a number of injuries including grievous injuries to many persons from the complainant side in furtherance of their common object and hence, his individual act is of no relevance at this stage. They submitted that the petitioner has criminal record and an FIR No. 795/2020 came to be registered against him under Sections 323, 346, 504, 506 and 34 IPC on 04.10.2020 during his custody in the present case. They, therefore, prayed for rejection of this bail application.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. There is no qualm about proposition that filing of successive bail applications is permissible; however, it is also settled that there has to be some substantial change in circumstance which would permit the Court rejecting the earlier bail application, fresh consideration on the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. versus Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr., AIR 2005 SCC, 921, held as under:-

"19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands