KARNA PRADHAN Vs. STATE (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

(2.) This is an application under section 438 Crimial P.C. 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 60 of 2016 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No. 114 of 2016(V) pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in ABLAPL No. 19168 of 2016 was refused on 29.11.2017 basing on the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department that the custodial interrogation of petitioner is very much necessary and the petitioner has not cooperated fully with the investigation. Challenging such submission, this anticipatory bail application has been filed wherein it is urged that the petitioner was never called upon to join investigation and therefore, the question of non-cooperation does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner has retired from the Government Service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad reported in (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 673, wherein it is held that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances but without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169.