S. N. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is a second bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The earlier bail application was rejected by this Court; on 28/1/1983. FIR No. 406/82, under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 323 and 308, I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station, Baran by one Shri Prahlad Dhakad. It was alleged therein that when he was talking with Shiv Narain and others at Pratap Chowk, accused-petitioner along with Nathu Lal, Ram Kumar, Deen Dayal and Dhan Raj came there and Deen Dayal caught hold of Govarilal and Dhan Raj caught hold of Hari Ram and thereafter Nathu Lal inflicted a blow on the right side of the head of Nathu Lal whereas Ram Gopal inflicted a blow on his left of the back. Accused Ram Kumar wanted to hit on his head by the chair. Ram Gopal inflicted a blow by a fist on the nose of Govari Lal which started bleeding and there was swelling. The injury report show that Gopal received injuries by a blunt object and was described as under :- "contusion swelling around nose with marked tenderness. HO. bleeding from nose. " X-ray was advised and it was found that there was a fracture of nose. On this launching of F. I. R. accused persons moved an application under Section 438, Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge, Kota, which was rejected by him on 13/1/1983. The accused persons moved a bail application under Sec. 438, Cr. P. C. before this Court which was decided on 28/1/83 and the accused persons, namely, Nathu Lai, Ram Kumar, Deen Dayal and Dhan Raj were granted anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. , but the bail application of petitioner Ram Gopal was rejected, because, it was alleged that Ram Gopal was responsible for the fracture of the nose of Govari Lal by inflicting fist blow on his nose. The present bail application has been filed before this Court on 15/2/1983 and, Deen Dayal one of the co-accused, submitted an affidavit stating that when he surrendered before the police on 5/2/1983, before Shri Parbat Singh SI, Police Station, Baran, he inquired about Ram Gopal and told him to convey to Ram Gopal that since his anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the High Court he should meet him at his house and he himself will release Ram Gopal on bail and convert this offence into bailable offence provided he pays for that, otherwise he shall arrest Ram Gopal and take him in the village hand-cuffed and shall beat him as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the changed circumstances his application for anticipatory bail should be allowed.
(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that his earlier bail application has been rejected by this Court. THE learned counsel for the accused-petitioner then referred to Babu Singh vs. State of U. P. (1) in which it has been observed that order refusing bail does not bar fresh application on later occasion giving more details, further developments and different considerations. THE second bail application should not be rejected merely on the ground that his earlier application for bail was rejected That was a case pending before the Supreme Court and his earlier bail application was rejected by the Supreme Court on 7. 9. 1977, and all the petitioners were convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life but, still his sentence was suspended and was ordered to be released on bail In that judgment they have relied on earlier decision of the Supreme Court report in Kashmira Singh vs. THE State of Punjab (2) and other several English cases. THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a reported decision of this Court in Nahar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3) wherein Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. K. D. Sharma,had accepted the fourth application for anticipatory bail, though his previous applications were dismissed by three different Judges of this Court as the petitioner was suffering from hypertension and chest pain. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record available. In view of these authorities I am inclined to reject the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that second bail application is not maintainable. The second bail application should not be entertained in routine, but if there are some circumstances which were not before the Court when the earlier bail application was rejected, or some additional grounds, or there are some further developments and different considerations and if some more details are available at a later stage at the time of second or subsequent bail applications, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent bail application. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether it should be granted or not. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially the affidavit of Deen Dayal I am inclined to accept this application for anticipatory bail to the accused Ram Gopal son of Chhitar, under Section 438, Cr. P. C. and direct that in the event of his arrest, in connection with FIR No. 406/82 of Police Station Baran, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) together with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 2,500/- each to the satisfaction of arresting officer/sho/investigating officer for his appearance before the investigating officer for interrogation on the following conditions:- (1) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to that court or to any Police Officer. (2) That the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. .;