ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2021 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.647 of

2020 of Ernakulam North Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 392, 506, 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is the 2nd time the applicant is approaching this Court for anticipatory bail. The earlier bail application filed as B.A.No.5604 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29/09/2020 and the applicant was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. But, the applicant did not comply with the order and he has approached this Court relentlessly seeking pre arrest bail.

2. An accused has the right to make 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 (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 KHC 754 : AIR 2004 SC

1866).

3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav, 2005 KHC 604 : AIR 2005 SC 921 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."

4. In Aneesh v. State of Kerala, 2014 (1) KHC 633, this Court has observed as follows:

"If the case put forward by the accused was considered on the merits and an application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as such, it may not be proper for that accused to apply again for anticipatory bail in the absence of any change of circumstances. Finality of orders passed by the Court requires that no party should be allowed to put forward similar contentions in successive applications. Unlike the civil proceeding, the rights of parties are not finally determined in an application for anticipatory bail under S.438 of Cr.P.C nor a final adjudication made as in a civil suit. Therefore, when circumstances change, the accused concerned could approach the Court for relief though that relief was refused on an earlier occasion."

An accused has the right to make a second application for pre - arrest bail. But, the second application has to state the change in circumstances. Matters which had been agitated earlier cannot be permitted to be re - agitated. A plea for review of the earlier order cannot be permitted to be made under the guise of a second application. Filing successive bail applications, without there being any change in circumstances cannot be entertained.

The bail application is dismissed.