AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 172 wordsGopinath P, J
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehementally contends that despite this court dismissing bail application of the petitioner through order dated 22-12-2021 in B.A. No.9628/2021 this bail application can be considered as more than 2 ½ months have elapsed since earlier bail application was rejected by this court. It is also pointed out that accused No.2 in the charge initially laid (before it was split up) has already been granted bail by this court. Despite the vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not consider the circumstances mentioned above as a change of circumstances from the time at which the earlier bail application of the petitioner was considered, warranting a different view being taken. It is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav; (2005) KHC 605 = (2005) 2 SCC 42, that unless there is a substantial change of circumstances warranting a different view being taken, successive bail applications cannot be entertained.
Bail application will stand dismissed.