Kerala High Court
Nidish Kalamkar vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1836 OF 2021
CRIME NO.10/2020 OF Perumpadappu Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
NIDISH KALAMKAR
AGED 42 YEARS
SHIVAJINAGAR, B-202,KANCHAN GEET APARTMENTS, NAGPUR,
MAHARASHTRA
440010
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SMT.P.PARVATHY
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.V.SREEJA -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.1836 OF 2021 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 1st day of March 2021 Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. This is a successive bail application filed by the applicant in Crime No.10/2020 of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 489 A, 489 B, 489C, 489D, 489E, 419 and 468 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2020 at about 2.40 p.m., the applicant and his wife, the second accused in this crime, were intercepted by the police, while they were travelling in a car bearing registration No.MH 04/DB 7783. On inspection they found carrying 45 counterfeit currencies of 2000 denominations and 55 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, having a total value of Rs.1,16,000/-. They also found to be in possession of printers and on further inspection, the applicant was carrying a fake Aadhar card in his name at a fictitious address. The applicant and his wife belong to Pune in Maharashtra. The applicant had earlier filed an application before this Court as B. A No.4109/2020 and the same was dismissed by Bail Appl..No.1836 OF 2021 3 this Court on 07.07.2020. This is the second time he has approached this Court for bail. The main reason for declining bail by this Court was that he is involved in another crime of similar nature registered as Crime No.222/2019 of Samarth Police Station, Pune. Moreover, he was also holding a fake Aadhar card with a fictitious address. Therefore, the intention of the applicant was very explicit. His wife has been granted bail because she was a lady and was only found travelling along with him. But the fact that his wife has been granted bail was not considered favourable to the applicant, by this Court while considering his bail application. The final report has already been filed and I am sure that the jurisdictional court is earnestly attempting to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Successive bail applications are maintainable but only when the applicant is able to prove that there is a change of circumstances.
3. An accused has the right to make successive applications for a 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 Bail Appl..No.1836 OF 2021 4 the earlier applications (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 KHC 754: AIR 2004 SC 1866).
4. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav, 2005 KHC 604 : AIR 2005 SC 921, the Apex Court has held thus:
"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"
I find no change in circumstances, and therefore the applicant is not entitled to any bail. The mere fact that he is detained for the purpose of trial and he is an undertrial prisoner is not a breach of his liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the application is dismissed.
SD/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm