Dr. P. Devadass, J.

Petition for bail.

2. Offences alleged are under Sections 307 and 506(ii) of I.PC. @ Section 302 of l.P.C. in Crime No. 143 of 2017.

3. Petitioner is A-3 in this case.

4. This is his second bail petition. His first bail petition has been dismissed on 17.2.2017. There is no bar in Criminal law to file successive bail applications. The principle of res judicata, law of limitation are not applicable to bail petitions including anticipatory bail petitions. The reason being that the bail matters are concerned with securing the liberty of a person which is sacrosanct, [see Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav 2005 (1) CTC 783 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 972 : (2005) 3 SCC 284 : LNIND 2005 SC 141 : (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 566 and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi AIR 2005 SC 3490 : (2005) 8 SCC 21 : LNIND 2005 SC 725 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 39].

5. Any number of bail petitions can be filed by the same accused one after the other. But in case of such successive bail applications the accused must demonstrate 'change of circumstances' since the dismissal of his earlier bail petitions. But it should not be a 'cosmetic change'. The factors must demonstrate some 'perceptible change of circumstances'. Then the Court will have change of mind.

6. Srinivasan and Siva/A-1 are enemies. Bad blood was brewing between them. A-1's friend is etitioner/A-3. On 20.1.2017, at about 10.45 p.m., near Kamarajar colony, Rangarajapuram. near Kodambakkam Bridge, Chennai Srinivasan and Rajesh came. They were cornered by A-1 and his associates. They have attacked them. Srinivasan sustained mortal wounds. Rajesh sustained injuries on his left shoulder.

7. The injured Srinivasan was rushed to the hospital. At his death bed, he gave statement. On the next day. he breathed his last. His last testimony became his 'dying declaration' vide Section 32(1), Evidence Act read with Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. Rajesh had providential escape.

8. In this connection, several persons were booked and arrested. One of them is petitioner/A-3. He was arrested on 21.1.2017. Since then he is counting the bars.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not responsible for the injuries sustained by Srinivasan. lie is alleged to have assaulted Rajesh on his shoulder.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that actually on that day at the time of occurrence, he was present in an hospital, where his wife was admitted and she had also delivered a baby.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner has been implicated in this case. He is in jail for the past 59 days. If granted bail, he will not abscond. He may be granted bail.

12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) filed counter. He also contended that the petitioner is an evil spirit. He is an anti social element. He is an associate of A-1. His past is not good. He is involved in five previous cases.

13. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the so called previous cases are fake cases, put up to put behind the bars under the Preventive Detention Law and in all these cases he has been granted bail.

14. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the bail petition and the averments in the counter.

15. Succinctly, necessary factual matrix has already been stated Let us not duplicate it.

16. As against the petitioner, the over-tact attributed is with reference to the assault unleashed on Rajesh on his shoulder. Out of the five previous cases, four cases are routine law and order cases. They are pending trial. In those cases, he is already on bail. The latest one is Crime No. 144 of 2017. It is also of similar nature. In that case also he was granted bail. It is pertinent to note that all these cases were registered by R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station.

17. Now, the petitioner could not come out of jail because of his incarceration in the present murder case. We have noticed the role ascri