The High Court rejected a successive petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail as the petition was not maintainable, relying on prior clear speaking orders and Supreme Court precedents barring such applications when facts had not changed.
The petition was rejected.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:28479 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6048 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VELLANKI RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE (TOWN POLICE CHITRADURGA) TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.223/2021 VIDE C.C.NO.567/2023, OF TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, FOR THE ALLEGE OFFENCES P/U/S. 120(B), 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:28479 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner counsel and learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel submits that it is a successive bail petition invoking under section 438 of Cr.P.C and earlier approached the Court during the crime stage and now charge sheet has been filed and he may be enlarged on bail and any condition may be imposed.
NC: 2023:KHC:28479 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2023
vide order dated 09.06.2022 on merits and comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise a discretion in favour of petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C, the same cannot be entertained.
SCC online SC 176 wherein the Apex Court held that the change of circumstances cannot be invoked for the successive anticipatory bail application once it is rejected by speaking order and also by the same Judge.
counsel for the State and admittedly this is a successive bail petition and this Court earlier rejected the bail petition during the crime stage vide order dated 09.06.2022 in coming to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Now the counsel contend that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed. But, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court is very clear that the specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail application, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that to by the same
NC: 2023:KHC:28479 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2023
judge, this court earlier vide order dated 09.06.2022 passed the speaking order considering the case of prosecution and also the grounds urged earlier even during the crime stage also comes to the conclusion that it is not a case for 438 and now even counsel for the petitioner contend that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and when such being the case, this court earlier passed an order considering the material, that to by a speaking order, the second 438 petition is not maintainable and hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the second bail petition in view of the order passed
by the Apex Court reported in 2021 SCC online SC 176 .
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a successive anticipatory bail petition filed after a speaking order during investigation is maintainable.
Whether filing of charge sheet constitutes a change of circumstances warranting reconsideration of rejected statutory bail.
SRI MANOJ @ MANOJ KUMAR G @ BHASHA
STATE BY TOWN PS. CHITRADURGA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
