ORDER

This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. First application, M.Cr.C. No.3635/2023 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 31.012023.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2023 registered at Police Station Umariya, district Umariya (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 305 of the I.P.C.

An objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the successive bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., when the first bail application was rejected on merits.

Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that there is no bar in entertaining a successive application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on (2014) 16 SCC 501 Jagmohan Bahl and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2011) 14 SCC 765 Bhaskar Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and on a Division Bench decision passed in a reference in the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and others Vs. State of M.P. 1996 MPLJ 662 (M.Cr.C. No. 648/1995) to substantiate his arguments.

In Imratlal Vishwakarma (supra), in para 10, the Court held thus :-

10........If the application has been filed on the same grounds which had already been considered earlier while rejecting the first bail application, it can be rejected summarily on the ground that the same grounds have been re-agitated in the fresh petition and the petition has not been moved on any new ground. However, it shall have to be considered in each petition on the facts and circumstances of that case that the said aspects had been pressed into service in the previous petition which was rejected and no new ground has been shown to exist for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. This can be determined only on the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court has to decide as to whether the fresh petition has been filed on the same grounds which were considered and not accepted, or rejected in the previous petition and no new ground has been made out in the second application. In our opinion, to say that the second application filed under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code would not be tenable, would be laying down something which is not there in codified and legislated legislation. In view of the aforementioned decisions, the objection regarding maintainability is rejected, however, the repeat application can only be considered if there exists changed circumstances or any subsequent information that was come to the light. The earlier bail application was dismissed while observing that as per the allegations, the deceased while playing alongwith other children, started tractor of the present applicant who got annoyed by this act and threatened and beat the deceased. It is stated that due to threatening and beating given by the present applicant, the victim who was a child of 16 years got scared and committed suicide. The Doctor in the postmortem report has mentioned that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. However, there are other child eye witnesses who have given the statement that the present applicant has beaten-up the deceased and also threatened him. Injuries are also present on the body of the deceased. In view of the postmortem report, the injuries found on the person of the deceased and the statement of witnesses, the first application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The present case has been filed on the ground that the applicant being a government servant would face a great prejudice, if he is arrested and that no injury was found on the body of the deceased. In the present case, the incident is dated 15.11.2022. The first application was dismissed on 31.01.2023 after considering the case diary. There is no change in the fact situation which existed on the date of rejection of his earlier application. The material which is available against the present applicant today is the same as was available on the earlier occasion. The panc