Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a fresh bail application could be granted in the absence of any material change of circumstances after earlier refusals of bail had been upheld, and whether the bail order was liable to be set aside.
Analysis: The respondent had earlier sought bail repeatedly before the Sessions Court and the High Court, and a prior challenge before the Supreme Court had also failed. The impugned order granting bail was passed shortly thereafter without any substantial new circumstances justifying a different view. The Court held that although the rule of res judicata does not strictly apply to bail, successive bail applications cannot be entertained on the same facts without a meaningful change in circumstances. The Court also noted the serious allegations of conspiracy and the apprehension of interference with witnesses, and found that the reasons recorded for grant of bail did not justify departure from the earlier orders.
Conclusion: The bail order was unsustainable and was set aside; the respondent was directed to be taken into custody forthwith.
Final Conclusion: Repeated bail applications on the same material, without changed circumstances, cannot justify grant of bail where earlier refusals have already been sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh bail application should not be allowed on the same facts unless there is a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.