TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Accused cannot file second anticipatory bail petition after withdrawing first with surrender undertaking</h1> <h3>Bhunesh Versus State of Haryana</h3> Bhunesh Versus State of Haryana - TMI Issues:1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Non-compliance with the undertaking to surrender before the police within a specified period.3. Maintainability of subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications.4. Merits of the case regarding the main accused's involvement in alleged offenses.5. Abuse of the legal process by filing successive anticipatory bail petitions.The judgment by the High Court addressed the second petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner had initially sought anticipatory bail, but after withdrawal of the first petition and an undertaking to surrender within 10 days, a subsequent petition was filed beyond the agreed period. The Court noted the non-compliance with the previous statement and deemed the second petition as nonmaintainable and misconceived, warranting dismissal with costs.Regarding the maintainability of successive anticipatory bail applications, the Court distinguished them from regular bail applications, emphasizing that the former cannot be treated similarly. While subsequent regular bail applications may consider changed circumstances like prolonged custody, anticipatory bail petitions lack such flexibility. The petitioner failed to provide any legal precedent supporting the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail petition, especially after not adhering to the prior commitment to surrender.On the merits of the case, the Court analyzed the FIR's contents, implicating the petitioner as the main accused in a scheme involving coercion, threats, and fabrication of documents to extort money. Given the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation to establish the sequence of events, the Court deemed the petitioner ineligible for anticipatory bail, further justifying the rejection of the second petition.Additionally, the judgment highlighted an abuse of the legal process, where litigants attempt to evade adverse orders by withdrawing petitions and subsequently filing new ones without valid reasons. The Court condemned this practice, imposing costs on the petitioner and directing them to deposit the amount with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a specified timeframe to deter such misuse of the judicial system.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved, providing a detailed overview of the Court's reasoning and decision-making process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
