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
7 paragraphs · 331 wordsAnanda Sen, J
Heard the parties.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 420/384 in connection with CP Case No. 766 of 2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
An objection has been taken by the informant that on earlier occasion the petitioner has filed ABA No. 3423 of 2019 which was dismissed on 28.09.2019 on the ground of non-prosecution. To restore anticipatory bail application another application being Cr.MP No. 3644 of 2019 was filed and the same was again dismissed on 06.12.2019 as no one appeared even inspite of repeated calls. Thus according to the informant and the State fresh anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rani Dudeja vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2017) 13 SCC 555 and submits that the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
I have gone through the petition, the facts of the case and the earlier orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rani Dudeja” (supra) has held that the second application is maintainable on change of circumstances and the principle of res judicata is not operated. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that on the changed circumstances another anticipatory bail application is definitely maintainable.
So far as this case is concerned, I find that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected way back on 28.09.2019 and the restoration application was also rejected on 06.12.2019. The present application has been filed only on 18.05.2024. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested. Further admittedly the petitioner was not arrested from 2019 till date. In view of this Court that there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested, I find no ground to entertain this application, the same is dismissed.