The necessity of custodial interrogation and lack of cooperation in the investigation can be grounds for declining pre-arrest bail, and successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. (Oral). - Case taken up through video conferencing.

This second petition for pre-arrest bail has been filed by petitioner Himanshu, an accused in FIR No.436 dated 06.10.2019, for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 307 and 325 IPC added later on), registered with Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.

Briefly stated the prosecution story is that, on 05.10.2019 at about 8.30 PM in the area of Village Khijjar Pur, Ahir Majra, Sonepat within jurisdiction of Police Station Ganaur, accused Rambir carrying an iron pipe, his sons Himanshu (petitioner/accused) and Abhishek carrying bodkins (suas) along with their co-accused Babli and Sheetal had attacked Dharampal causing him injuries; Himanshu and Abhishek are said to have repeatedly attacked Dharampal causing him injuries on vital parts including on chest and back; keeping in view the nature of injuries to be grievous and dangerous to life, offences under Section 307 and 325 IPC were added later on.

Shakuntla @ Babli and Himanshu could not get the relief of pre-arrest bail from the Court of Sessions at Sonepat for offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC; thereafter, they had approached this Court seeking similar relief by way of filing CRM-M-8085-2020; that petition was disposed of inasmuch as concession of anticipatory bail was granted to petitioner Shakuntla @ Babli but it was declined to Himanshu, observing that as informed by the State counsel, though, petitioner Himanshu had joined the investigation but he had neither got the weapon used in the incident recovered nor rendered proper cooperation in the investigation, therefore, his custodial interrogation was found to be necessary to effect the recovery of weapon used in the incident and to find out as to how the incident was planned and executed, the role played by each one of the assailants, from where the weapon used in the incident were procured and where they were concealed/dumped after the incident, the gravity and seriousness of allegations against petitioner Himanshu were also found to dis-entitle him to grant of pre-arrest bail; a detailed order giving reasons was passed on 26.07.2021.

Petitioner Himanshhu has approached this Court again after less than one month of passing of the first order seeking relief of pre-arrest bail. In this petition, almost the same assertions as in the first petition have been repeated, which were considered while dismissing the first petition qua the present petitioner. The petitioner by way of filing the instant petition wants this Court to review the order giving reasons, which are least convincing.

The Apex Court in recent judgment G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.213- 2021, has deprecated the practise of filing the successive anticipatory bail applications. The operative part of the said order being as follows:-

“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.”

As such, the second petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) SCC 684. That judgment had different facts and observations made therein were quite distinct that anticipatory bail cannot be rejected solely on the ground that challan had been presented and it can be granted at any time so long as the accused has not been arrested. In this case, the situation is quite different. The FIR was though initially registered for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC, however, later on keeping in view the nature of injuries on the perso