An applicant can only submit a successive bail application if there are significant changes in circumstances or law, justifying a reevaluation of previously denied requests.

O R D E R

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 392, 506, 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. This is a successive application for anticipatory bail.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, can be reiterated as thus:

The defacto complainant, a security staff with the Cochin Metro, was allegedly administered some stupefying drink, rendered unconscious in Classic Lodge situated near Lissi Hospital in Ernakulam and robbed of 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash by the accused in furtherance of common intention. On indentifying the assailants, the complainant approached them on 10.02.2020 at about 11.00 AM at Pandalam and the accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him.

3. The applicant states that he had acquaintance with the 1st accused to whom he had provided a car on rent. 1st accused however failed to return the car on time. The applicant had gone in search of him, and had to stay in Thiruvananthapuram due to the pandemic restrictions. The 1st accused had thereafter asked the applicant to meet him at Ernakulam. When the applicant met 1st accused at Ernakulam, the de facto complainant was also with him, and was introduced as his friend. The applicant was told that the complainant would pay the dues towards car rent. The applicant states that at a later point in time he came to know that the de facto complainant had hired the rest of the accused to commit a murder, and the gold ornaments were entrusted by him towards remuneration for that engagement. He is innocent and the allegations are not true. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also agrees to cooperate with the investigation. He was falsely implicated as accused. The applicant also states that he has audio and video evidence to sustantiate his version.

The applicant filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, and had also approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.7303/2021 seeking a fair investigation in the case. The applicant has approached this Court afresh for anticipatory bail.

4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The earlier bail application was dissmissed by this Court considering that the allegation against the accused is a very grave one and the applicant was definitely a part of that crime. Hence, the applicant was not found entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatiry bail. The applicant was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. He did not surrender and cooperate with the investigation. Even if the version now stated by him is true, the only way to find that is by subjecting him to interrogation.

5. An accused has, no doubt, the liberty to file successive applications for grant of bail. But, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications, has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications (SeeKalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 KHC 754 : AIR 2004 SC 1866 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav , 2005 KHC 604 : AIR 2005 SC

92 1, the Apex Court has held as follows:

“Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.”

6. The only change in circumstances pointed out by the applicant in the instant case is that he has filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police and ha