A. Ponnuchami vs State of Raj.

Nisha Gupta, J.—An application has been filed on behalf of CBI by Mr. Santosh Kumar, I.O./Dy. S.P. CBI, SC-II stating that as the advocates are on strike, the bail application should be adjourned but looking to the fact that bail application is u/s 439 Cr.P.C. could not be adjourned for indefinite period and apart from it a brief synopsis has been filed by the Investigating Officer, hence there seems to be no need to adjourn the matter.

Heard Smt. A. Bhuvaneshwari, wife of petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar, Dy. S.P., CBI, New Delhi, Investigating Officer and Mr. VS Meena, Inspector, CBI, New Delhi who are present for State and perused the material on record.

The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that after rejection of first bail application, the co-accused R.S. Rathore has been discharged. The petitioner is behind the bars from last three and half years. There are about 250 witnesses out of which only 72 witnesses have yet been examined. The petitioner was an honest and dutiful officer and he has been implicated falsely, his mother is ill and children are of growing age. He has been implicated only on the evidence of tower location which cannot be a legal evidence and inference could not be drawn on the basis of tower location as held in Rohit Dhingra and Another Vs. State, . Interception of telephones have not been ordered by the present petitioner, it was not signed by him as PW/19 Ajit Singh has categorically stated that on Ex. D/100 signs are not of the present petitioner. Ajit Singh has worked with the petitioner for a pretty long time. He is well conversed with the writing of the petitioner whereas other witness PW/21 Saurabh Srivastava is only the batch mate and he had no occasion to identify the signatures of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been named in the supplementary charge-sheet presented against the co-accused Rajendra Rathore and written submissions made by CBI while opposing the bail application of Arshad Ali, the present petitioner has not been shown as a conspirator. The contention of the CBI was that Rajendra Singh Rathore and Arvind Kumar Jain has hatched criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased Dara Singh. The petitioner was only the noddle officer to co-ordinate with the different service provider company for procuring the details of intercepted telephones. He is in custody since long and reliance has been placed on Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, Further the contention of the petitioner is that he remained on interim bail for one year and he is a law abiding citizen. He has not misused the liberty of interim bail and looking to the long period of custody, he be released on bail.

Per contra, on behalf of CBI a brief synopsis has been filed in which brief facts of the case have been narrated and evidence and role of present petitioner has also been explained which could not be considered again as this is the second bail application and in earlier bail application, merits of the case has already been considered. On behalf of CBI observations made by the co-ordinate Bench have also been narrated on which no dispute could be raised. The contention on behalf of the CBI is that the role of the present petitioner is not at par with other co-accused who have been released on bail. This is not the case of the petitioner and he has not claimed parity with any of the co-accused.

The contention on behalf of the CBI is that earlier the bail application has been dismissed after consideration of merits of the case and thereafter no new facts have arisen in favour of petitioner and when there is no change in the factual situation this bail application deserves to be dismissed and reliance has been placed on State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, wherein it has been held that once an application was rejected, there is no question of granting similar prayer because it would be virtually overriding the earlier decision when there was no change in the fact situation and it has also been held that change should be substantial and not merely cosmetic change. Further reliance has been placed on Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), and contention of the CBI is that trial is proceeding and 72 witnesses have been examined in spite of lengthy cross-examination by the accused persons and further reliance has been placed on Prakash Kadam and Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Another, which explains the principles of sentencing in cases of fake encounter which is not the case here and contention of CBI is that the bail application be rejected.

The earlier bail application has been rejected after considering the merits of the case and I did not find any substantial change in the circumstances after passing of the order, rejecting the first bail application.

Hence this bail application is dismissed.