Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Respondent No.2 had applied for bail before filing the charge sheet. His bail application was rejected on 2 nd January 2024. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail within two weeks.

5. It is the vehement argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that both applications were decided prior to filing the charge sheet. The learned Judge did not consider the rule of 'change in circumstances' to grant or consider the successive bail application. He would submit that the earlier bail application was rejected, holding that injuries caused to the complainant were grievous. The photographs were also examined. The Court opined that the act was committed in a brutal manner. The reason behind the incident appears to be a trifle. The Court held acb-36.24.odt that the offence was serious. The investigation is in progress. For such reasons, the application was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has a serious objection that respondent No.2 has access to the investigation papers. Hence, respondent No.2 has referred to the documents of medical treatment papers in his successive bail application. It was also a ground for successive bail application that the investigation is completed, and the charge sheet is likely to be filed, and the medico legal certificate is also ready. He has raised suspicion that unless the Investigating Officer supported the accused had no reason to know the actual progress of the investigation. He also objected that the accused knew that the injuries were simple. He also argued that there were no changes in circumstances. Completion of investigation is no change in circumstance. He also pointed out that the Court reviewed its opinion about the nature of the injuries and mechanically granted the bail to respondent No.2 without application of mind. He referred to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar alias Pintu s/o. Nivrutti Talekar vs. Ganesh s/o. Pratap Mote and another (Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 18 of 2021 with other Applications, dated 13 th July 2023). Referring to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court he has vehemently argued that the order granting bail without acb-36.24.odt change in circumstances is a serious discrepancy and the bail was granted on untenable grounds. He also argued about the applicant's family background. He prayed that since the order is perverse, illegal and without following principles of 'change in circumstance', it is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the first bail application was rejected as the investigation was in progress. The Court probably did not have the medical papers. Hence, the Court has opined on the basis of the photographs, that the injuries were grievous. However, in a subsequent bail application, the medical certificate was available before the Court. The opinion of the doctor/medical officer was that the injuries were simple. The Court has also considered that the injured was out of danger. There was a material change in circumstances from the date of rejection of the earlier bail application until the successive bail application was considered. The impugned order is free from illegality; therefore, the application has no substance.

9. In the case of Deepak Yadav vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2022 SC 2514 , it has been observed that, where the bail has been granted on untenable grounds and where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail, thereby causing prejudice to justice, the bail may be cancelled. In the case, of Hari Sing Mann vs. Harbhajan Sing Bajwa (2001) 1 SCC 169, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the successive bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the same FIR is not maintainable unless some changed circumstances are shown; otherwise, the exercise of jurisdiction in entertaining successive bail application amounts to review of the previous order of the same Court which is not permissible. Law is settled that the burden on the accused is to satisfy the Court that there were substantial changes in the circumstances for entertaining successive bail application. It should be in clear words. There should be substantial change in the circumstances.