- (1.)HEARD Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. This is second anticipatory bail application preferred by the same Applicant in respect of the same offence, being Cr. No. 11/2004. Earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by me after considering the merits of the case on september 6, 2004. In one of the recent orders, I have observed that successive anticipatory bail applications cannot be permitted.
(2.)TO get over that observation, learned Counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the reported decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1997 (1) Crimes 289 in the case of (Imratlal Vishwakarma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh ). The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh high Court has taken the view that in changed circumstances, second application for anticipatory bail can be entertained. Reliance is also placed on the decision of our High Court (Single Judge) reported in 1988 (1) Bom. C. R. 22 in the case of (Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State ). Even this decision reiterates the above legal position, as can be discerned from the dictum in para 8 of the said decision. Replying on the aforesaid decisions, the Counsel for the Applicant submits that merely because earlier anticipatory bail application has been rejected by this Court will not preclude the Applicant to take out another application.
(3.)THE learned A. P. P. , on the other hand, had placed reliance on the Full bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in (2003 Cri. L. J. I), wherein it is held that successive anticipatory bail application is impermissible and should be thrown out summarily. However, for the reasons recorded hereinbelow, it is not necessary to go into the wider question.