Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by an order on merits and as such he ought to have filed a petition for regular bail by surrendering before the learned Trial Court and the second anticipatory bail after rejection of the earlier petition in the same case is not maintainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that one another case is registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act bearing FIR No.65 dated 11.04.2023, under Section

15/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Lehra.

6. The Full Bench of three Judges of Rajasthan High Court also considered the issue of maintainability of second anticipatory bail in Ganesh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 30 and reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005(1)

RCR(Criminal) 703 which propounded the following :-

"It is trite law the personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the

2025.02.15 09:30 prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so."

There Lordships further observed in para 18 as under: -

"... Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as it would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting."

In para 19 it was indicated thus:-

"... Therefore, 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 a 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."

7. In the ultimate analysis the Full Bench in Ganesh Raj (supra)

arrived at the following conclusion:-

“We hold that second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed 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. Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the S