Fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected, unless new facts and circumstances developed.

( 1 ) THE following question has been referred by learned single Judge to be decided by this Court :-"whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected. "

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Gama v. State of U. P. reported in 1987 Cri LJ 242. The learned single Judge in paragraph 5 of his judgment observed as follows :-"i am conscious that order on a bail application need not be detailed one but as the legal points were argued from both sides which require a bit detail discussion. After hearing the counsel for the parties at considerable length, the first point for determination is as to whether the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants about the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses being recorded under Section 164 of the Code was considered in the first order disposing of the bail application or not. Suffice it to say that the right of bail is statutory right, rather it is a constitutional right. Even though it may be second or third bail application, but unless it is apparent from a reading of the first bail order that the point urged in the subsequent bail applications was also considered and rejected, it cannot be said that the point urged in the second or third bail application would be deemed to have been considered in the first bail application just by implication. " (Underlined by us) After taking the view as mentioned above, the learned single Judge considered the third bail application on merit and rejected the same.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate as also learned counsel for the complainant contended that the subsequent bail application which was moved on the same facts and circumstances could not be entertained. Plea of bar under Section 362 Criminal Procedure Code was also taken. However both these counsel conceded that if fresh grounds, facts and circumstances may develop after dismissal of the previous bail application then such fresh grounds, circumstances and facts can be considered in the successive bail application. In this respect reliance was placed on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2292. Reliance was also placed on the case of Babu Singh v. State of U. P. , reported in 1978 Cri LJ 651 : (AIR 1978 SC 527) by all the three counsel.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the cases which were cited before the learned single Judge as also before us. We think that the point is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, (AIR 1989 SC 2292) (supra ). In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court while disapproving grant of bail by a learned single Judge of the High Court just after two days when a number of bail applications had been dismissed by another learned single Judge of that Court the Supreme Court also considered various other aspects relating to the question as to under what circumstances an application for bail should be considered even a previous application for bail had been rejected. It will be proper to quote relevant passages from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment :-"6. . . . The question then is whether there was justification for releasing the respondent on bail to facilitate yogic exercises under expert guidance at his residence, albeit under conditions of surveillance, even though Puranik, J. had rejected a more or less similar prayer only two days before? Should this Court refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even if it is satisfied that the jurisdiction was wrongly exercised. 7. Liberty occupies a place on pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the foun