In its order, the High Court noted that an accused whose bail application has been rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application in case of change in circumstance or factual position.
But, in case the subsequent application is allowed, the court has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the earlier applications preferred on behalf of the accused, the judge said.
Justice Mendiratta also observed that in the present case, the ACMM was expected to give due consideration to the grounds which weighed with the court in rejecting the earlier bail applications.
The ACMM, the High Court’s order recorded, should not have considered the application in a routine manner during the pendency of a bail application before the Sessions Court, as apparently there was no substantial change of circumstances.
“It may also be observed that if the record of earlier orders rejecting the bail application is concealed by the petitioner, then inevitably the Judicial Officer concerned may remain under an impression that no bail application had been considered earlier by any court. In the aforesaid eventuality, since the fraud vitiates all proceedings, the consideration of the bail application, would be no exception.”
Source: Barandbench
