Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications Ought Not To Be Entertained When Case Diary Indicates Non-Cooperation Of Accused: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail plea has held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained when the case diary and the status report clearly indicate that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation.
A Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in G R Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2021 SCC Online SC 176) observed that, “The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”
A criminal petition was filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), seeking bail for the petitioner in relation to a specific criminal case. The petitioner was facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 341, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149.
Advocate Ganesh S. Kalburgi appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Gururaj V. Hasilakar appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner's grounds for bail included the assertion that there were counter-cases filed against the complainant and that the injuries sustained by the victim were not fatal, among other arguments.
The Court heard arguments from both the petitioner's Counsel and the State's representative. The petitioner had previously filed a bail petition, which was rejected by the Court on December 9, 2021.
The Court then reviewed the current bail petition, which is considered a "successive" bail petition, meaning it is a subsequent attempt by the petitioner to secure bail after a previous attempt was denied.
However, the Court referring to the G R Ananda Babu case where the Supreme Court ruled that successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained, especially when the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation emphasized that the merits of the case have already been considered and that there was no valid reason to reconsider the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the successive bail petition, and consequently, it rejected the bail petition.
Cause Title: Bassappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, [NC No.: 2023:KHC-K:6091]
Click here to read/download the Order