Subsequent bail applications require a change in circumstances; repeated applications without such change are not entertained.

Order :

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.360/2020 registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 460, 302 and 323 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(5) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. The S.B. Criminal Appeal No.140/2023 (Iqbal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by detailed order dated 05.04.2023. The order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.360/2020, Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 460, 302 & 323 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and there is no evidence available against him. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that statements of PW1-Kuldeep and PW2-Sonu have been recorded and they have stated that the appellant has committed the offence as alleged against him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, looking to the gravity of offence and statements of PW1 and PW2, without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

Therefore, the bail application is rejected.”

4. On a careful perusal of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that the S.B. Criminal Appeal No.140/2023 (Iqbal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) filed by the appellant was dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this court on the ground that prima facie sufficient material is available on record indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged offences.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao’ reported in 1989 AIR 2292 has held that once a bail application has been dismissed, subsequent bail application can only be considered if there are a change in circumstances.

6. In the present case, this Court finds that there are no change in circumstances which may warrant fresh application of mind by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, the act of the appellant in filing repeated/successive bail applications without there being any change in circumstances, is not appreciated.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present criminal appeal.

8. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.