J&K High Court has ruled that a bail plea on the grounds rejected earlier by a Court cannot be entertained unless there was a substantial change in the fact situation or law.
“Change in fact situation would never mean any new or additional ground which was earlier available to the accused but that was not taken on the earlier occasion,” said a bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey.
The Court made these observations while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea of a retired officer who was booked by Anti-Corruption Bureau for allotting land in favour of various unit holders in alleged gross violation of Industrial Policy-2017-18, as General Manger District Industries Centre, Pulwama.
The accused, Laiq Parvaiz had moved an application for his anticipatory bail before the Court after court of special judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar had dismissed his bail plea.
Pointing out that in the case before it there was no change of circumstance, the Court said it was a case whereupon consideration of the material on record and submissions by parties, the Court of competent jurisdiction had consciously rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant on merits.
“There is nothing on record nor any argument has been advanced on behalf of the applicant to show that there has been any substantial change of circumstances after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application which would necessitate reconsideration of the prayer afresh,” the Court said.
The Court held that the analogy for entertaining a subsequent or second application for bail or anticipatory bail when it was earlier rejected, the consideration would be the same. “The change of the fact situation may differ from case to case,” it said.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court said a division bench of the apex court while dealing with a case for the grant of bail in almost the similar circumstances has observed that “when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely a cosmetic change which are of little or of no consequence.”
“I am of the view that the Courts should be too slow to allow the second application of a party for anticipatory bail where the earlier one has been rejected and there is no substantial change of circumstance or event” Justice Magrey said. “Repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail after rejection by the competent court after invoking the power of review of the decision of the earlier court may lead to judicial anarchy about which caution has been sounded by the apex Court in umpteen judicial dictums.”
While dismissing the application, the Court however made it clear that its order should not come in the way of the accused to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking regular bail.
“Observations made in the order shall not be deemed to be any comment upon the merits of the case,” the Court said.