Successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained, and the extraordinary nature of the relief of anticipatory bail must be justified by exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK PURI , J.

1. The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Through instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 66 dated 17.10.2018 under Sections 307/452/323/148/149 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala.

3. The case has been registered on the basis of statement of Vijay Kumar alleging that the marriage of his son, namely, Gagan was solemnized with Suman and there was a matrimonial dispute between them. The marriage of the other son of the complainant was to be solemnized on 18.10.2018. On 17.10.2018, a car having mud on the number plate arrived at the house of the complainant. Petitioner alongwith Mohit, who are the brothers-in-law of Gagan alongwith three unidentified persons came out of the car. One of the assailants was armed with gandasi and another one was armed with kahi. Mohit exhorted and after entering into the house, he fired upon with an intention to kill and bullet hit the left thigh of the complainant. Petitioner alongwith Mohit started firing from the pistol, the unidentified persons armed with gandasi inflicted injury on the left elbow of Swaran Kumar, the brother-in-law of the complainant and the other unidentified persons armed with kahi inflicted kahi blow upon Reena Kakkar, wife of the complainant.

4. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that through earlier bail application was dismissed in terms of speaking order dated 13.02.2020, but subsequently, a compromise has been effected between the parties.

5. On the contrary, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ravinder Singh, states that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in terms of the order dated 01.04.2021. Furthermore, the compromise has been effected between the wife of the complainant and Suman but no compromise has been effected in the instant case. The said compromise has been effected to settle the matrimonial dispute between Suman, who is sister of petitioner and her husband who is son of the complainant. Even the terms and conditions of the compromise effected between the wife of the complainant and Suman have not been honoured.

6. It is significant to note that at the earlier instance, the petitioner and Mohit Chaudhary had instituted a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail and the same has been dismissed in terms of a speaking order dated 13.02.2020. The petitioner had been successful in evading the arrest for a period of about two and half years after the registration of the FIR and one year and two months from the date of dismissal of earlier application for anticipatory bail and has since been declared proclaimed offender. The compromise contained at Annexure P-9 does not indicate that the same pertains to the instant case. Moreover, once application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by a speaking order dated 13.02.2020, the specious reason indicating the change of circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail application.

7. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2021, titled as G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, decided on 28.01.2021, it has been laid down as following:-

“As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”

8. Furthermore, in a Full Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in Maya Rani Guin vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 774, one of the questions framed for adjudication was as fo