The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant. The Court held that the grounds raised did not warrant reconsideration as the case was previously rejected based on unfavorable materials, and no sufficient change in circumstances was established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MANDIRAMILINDSALGAONKAR Digitally signed byMANDIRA MILINDSALGAONKARDate: 2023.09.2017:55:29 +0530
1/2 18 ABA-2128-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2128 OF 2023
Rekha Narayanan Somayaji .. Applicant Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.Hrishikesh Chitaley i/b Mr.Hitesh B. Sangle for the Applicant.
Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
Ms.Divya Parab for the Intervenor (Complainant).
PI Lande attached to EOW, Unit -8, present.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2023
P.C:-
I do not think that these two grounds warrant entertaining of the bail application for the second time, the frst being permitted to be withdrawn on 20/0//2022, when I categorically noted that the application do not deserve any consideration in the wake of the material in the form of statement of an employee working in the company of the Applicant and one of the investors.
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/2 18 ABA-2128-23.odt
It is trite position of law that the second application for bail, deserve consideration only in the wake of change in circumstances and the grounds, which are projected by the learned counsel, cannot be construed to be so.
Worth it to mention that the Applicant had sought for being released on bail in the event of her arrest, as she was apprehending her arrest, but she has not bothered to report to the Investigating Offcer, once his application was rejected and, therefore, it is the discretion of the Investigating Offcer, whether to still seek her custody for further investigation or not.
2. The application is dismissed.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second anticipatory bail application premised on the completion of investigation and release of co-accused deserves consideration.
Whether the applicant's failure to report to the Investigating Officer after the initial application was rejected merits reconsideration of bail.
Whether the grounds pleaded for the second application justify entertaining the bail plea despite previous rejection.
Rekha Narayanan Somayaji
The State of Maharashtra
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
