J & K HC: Whether a person accused of the offence of rape can be released on bail subsequently on the ground of change of circumstances if the main prosecution witnesses who are examined do not support the prosecution's case?

It is pertinent to mention here that after the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner, statements of four more prosecution witnesses have been recorded. Therefore, there is a change in circumstances since the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner. {Para 6}

7) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that from the statements recorded during trial of the case, the prosecution version against him is not proved. It has been further contended that only on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence his bail application cannot be rejected, particularly when, prima facie, the offence for which he has been charged is not made out against him. It has been contended that the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the trial court while rejecting the bail applications of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years and all the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

13) After having gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly statement of the prosecutrix, her mother and grandfather, there appears to be prima facie merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Although at the stage of considering the plea of bail, a meticulous analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution is to be avoided, yet, for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application, it does appear that the sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon the prosecutrix, who was major at the relevant time, appears to be consensual in nature. Therefore, a case for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner is made out. The learned trial court, while rejecting earlier bail applications of the petitioner, has not considered the evidence led by the prosecution even for the limited purpose of deciding the bail applications and has mechanically rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Bail App No.91/2025

BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT  Vs.  UT OF J&K 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

Pronounced on:19.12.2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The Session Judge should not allow successive bail application if there is no substantial change in circumstances

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed orders in two bail applications within two weeks. First was rejected, expressing an opinion that injuries were serious, and second was allowed, observing that the injuries were simple. Once the bail is rejected before filing the charge sheet, the second application is not entertained unless there are substantial changes in circumstances. The investigation is complete on submission of the charge sheet/report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On reading two orders from the same Judge in the same crime, refusing and allowing bail application, the Court is of the view that it amounts to a review of the previous order of the same Court. Under the criminal law, the review is impermissible. After the first bail application was rejected, there were no substantial changes in circumstances to exercise the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Application For Cancellation of Bail No. 36 of 2024

Decided On: 02.07.2024

Khan Awez Ahmed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Mehare, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:13067, MANU/MH/4036/2024

Print Page

Whether trial court should allow subsequent bail application of accused if his earlier bail applications were rejected by higher courts?

In this context what has been stated by a three-Judge bench in Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat   MANU/SC/7526/2008 : (2008) 5 SCC 66 is quite instructive. In the said case, the Court has held that where the Court admits the Accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. {Para 19}

20. In the instant case, as is demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has not been guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He has not kept himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications had been rejected and the matter had travelled to this Court. Once this Court has declined to enlarge the Appellants on bail, endeavours to project same factual score should not have been allowed. It is absolute impropriety and that impropriety call for axing of the order.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2017.

Decided On: 28.03.2017

Virupakshappa Gouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

 Citations: AIR 2017 SC 1685, 2017 (5) SCC 406, 2017 CRI. L. J. 2769, AIR 2017 SC (CRIMINAL) 718, MANU/SC/0344/2017

Print Page

Whether subsequent bail application on grounds which were available at time of previous application is maintainable?

 It is thus well settled principle of law that successive bail

application can be entertained only when there is substantive change in fact situation or circumstances during the period between the two applications. The embargo on filing repeated bail applications on the same facts is to ensure some degree of finality to the order passed and to maintain judicial discipline and propriety.

12. The present application is not filed on the ground of change in circumstance but bail is sought on grounds, which were already available at the time of filing of the previous bail application. Such application would not be maintainable as it would virtually amount to review of the previous order.

13. It has to be borne in mind that when the Court decides the bail

application, it is deemed to have gone through the records and

considered all the relevant aspects of the case. Furthermore, the Court deciding the bail application is not required to give elaborate reasons. The only requirement is that the order should be reasoned order. Hence, the mere fact that some of the grounds which were available were not raised in the previous application or that the said grounds are not reflected in the previous order would not justify entertaining subsequent bail application. Suffice it to say that entertaining repeated prayers for bail on grounds which were already available or allowing another counsel to advance fresh arguments on the same facts would be against judicial discipline and propriety and will encourage abuse of process of law. Hence, we are not inclined to reconsider the merits of

the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2018

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2015

Ashok Pundalik Gavade Vs The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, AND

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

Dated : 30th JANUARY, 2019.

JUDGMENT (PER SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI. J.) :

Print Page

Whether accused has right to make successive bail application?

 Before concluding, we must note that though an Accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1448 of 2017

Decided On: 21.08.2017

 Prasad Shrikant Purohit  Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 11 SCC458

Print Page

Orissa HC: A subsequent bail application by the accused on the grounds of a change of circumstances may be considered if there is a change in the factual situation, a change in the law, or if the earlier finding has become obsolete.

Law is well settled that an accused has a right to

make successive applications for grant of bail but successive bail

applications are permissible under the changed circumstances.

The change of circumstances must be substantial one which has

a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic

changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the

change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application

would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection

order which is not permissible under criminal law. While

entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a

duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier

bail applications were rejected and what are the fresh grounds

which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of  the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which the application for bail of an accused that has been rejected earlier can be reconsidered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

BLAPL NO. 854 Of 2015

An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

 Deepak Gupta  V State of Orissa.

P R E S E N T:- MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

 Date of order- 28.03.2016

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL482

Print Page

Supreme court condemns “forum shopping” for filing successive bail applications

In the instant case, when the Additional Sessions
Judge-6 had declined to grant the bail application, the next
Additional Sessions Judge-04 should have been well
advised to place the matter before the same Judge.
However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the
notice of the concerned Judge that such an application was
rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available.
In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to
be involved. The matter would be different if a Judge has
demitted the office or has been transferred. Similarly, in
the trial court, the matter would stand on a different
footing, if the Presiding Officer has been superannuated or
transferred.
The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is
available, the matter should be heard by him.
That will
sustain the faith of the people in the system and nobody
would pave the path of forum-shopping, which is decryable
in law.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2335 OF 2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8355 of 2014]

Jagmohan Bahl & Anr.V State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Dated;DECEMBER 18, 2014.
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page