Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, K.S. RATHORE & KHEM CHAND SHARMA, JJ.
Ganesh Raj - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
F.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 783 of 2005
Decided On : April 01, 2005
The argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the filing of successive bail application is barred by Section 362, has no merit. The principles of res-judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in criminal proceedings [vide Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (supra).
In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the ratio indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkars case (supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed 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. (Para 24 & 25)
This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Section Judge/Additional Sessions Judge. (Para 25)
``Whether second or subsequent bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not?
(2). In our endeavour to answer the question, we may begin with noticing that provision of Anticipatory bail was introduced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Under the old Code 1898 there was no such provision. There were conflicting decisions of the High Court. Some of the High Courts took the view that bail could be granted to a person against whom a report of an offence was made even though he was neither arrested nor detained and even in a case where a person was suspected of an offence for which he might be arrested by a police officer but the majority of the High Court held that not to speak of Sessions Judge even High Court did not have inherent power to grant anticipatory bail by invoking 561A of the old Code. However Law Commission in the 41st report advocated the granting of power of anticipatory bail to ``Superior Courts. In its 48th report the Law Commission again endorsed the view expressed in the 41st report and clause 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill 1970 for the first time provided the provision of anticipatory bail thus:-
``As recommended by the Commission, a new provision is being made enabling the superior courts to grant anticipatory bail i.e., a direction to release a person on bail issued even before the person is arrested with a view to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation special provision is being made that the Court granting anticipatory bail may impose such conditions as it thinks fit. These conditions may be that a person shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall not do anything to hamper investigation.
It was observed by the Law Commission in its 48th report thus:-
``31. The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This is substantially in accordance with the recommendation made by the previous Commission (41st report). We agree that this would be a useful addition, though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised.
We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners, the final order should be made only after notice to the public prosecutor. The initial order should only be an interim one. Further the relevant section should make it clear that the direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded, and if the court is satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interest of justice.....
(3). The Bill was referred to the Joint Committee of the Parliament, which made following observations:-
``The Committee is of the opinion that certain specific conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail should be laid down in the clause itself for being complied with before the anticipatory bail is granted. The clause has been amended accordingly.
(4). The clause so amended (clause 436) was enacted as Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 438 reads as under:-
``438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direst, that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit including:-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not directly or indirectly make an
1. Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565)
2. Suresh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2001(2) RLR 757)
9. Nahar Singh vs. State of Raj. (1983 RLR 88)
20. Easland Combines Coimbatore vs. Collector of Central Excise ((2003) 3 SCC 410)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.