S.482 BNSS | Once Pre-Arrest Bail Is Denied On Merits, Second Plea Can't Be Entertained Without Any Change In Fact Situation: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that once the first anticipatory bail has been denied on merits and without there being change in the facts of the situation, the second application for the same relief under Section 482 BNSS cannot be entertained by making new arguments or twist by introducing new circumstances, development or material.
Justice Kirti Singh while rejecting the second anticipatory bail plea in a murder case noted that there was no change in circumstances and non-bailable warrants have already been issued against the accused.
The Court further elucidated that the concession of anticipatory bail is intended to prevent harassment through wrongful arrest but it is not a remedy for intentionally evading of the lawful process once non-bailable warrants are issued.
It added that granting anticipatory bail in these circumstances would undermine the purpose of non-bailable warrants as these are intended to ensure individual's presence and compliance with the judicial process.
These observations were made while hearing the second anticipatory bail of one Sikandar Singh, who was booked under FIR under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.
Earlier the Court had dismissed the pre-arrest bail plea on merits. However, the petitioner argued that various documents which were sine qua non for deciding the bail application of the petitioner which were neither referred nor placed on record and mentioned in the petition including statement of complainant and eye-witnesses.
After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "whether once this Court had dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application, can the accused be permitted to file second application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS."
Reliance was placed on Maya Rani Guin and etc. vs. State of West Bengal, [2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 774] wherein it was categorically held that entertaining second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or re-consideration of the earlier order passed by a Bench having coordinate jurisdiction, as the accusation remains unchanged.
In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner was summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to face trial and non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued in August and September. Now the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him.
In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Title: Sikandar Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 320