Punjab & Haryana High Court: Successive Bail Petitions Maintainable, Requires Substantial Change in Circumstances
Punjab & Haryana High Court allows successive bail petitions but demands substantial changes. Denied bail for man accused of raping daughter.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently made an important decision regarding bail applications. They said that even if a previous bail application was rejected, a new one can still be considered.
According to Justice Sumeet Goel, "Second or successive requests for anticipatory bail can be considered, whether the earlier request was dismissed for any reason."
The Court outlined some key points:
- A new request for anticipatory bail can be considered under the law. It shouldn't be rejected just because it's a second request.
- To be successful, the person making the request must show that there has been a significant change in circumstances. A small or fake change won't be enough.
- There are no strict rules about what counts as a significant change. Each case is different, and it's up to the judge to decide.
- If the Court does grant a second request for anticipatory bail, they need to give clear reasons for their decision.
- Once a High Court has rejected a request for anticipatory bail, a lower court can't consider a second request.
This decision came during a case involving a man accused of raping his daughter. His first request for bail was withdrawn in February.
The argument for the new bail request was that there were new details from the victim's statements to the police and court. These details showed more incidents of assault.
It was also argued that the petitioner had new photos that supported his case for bail.
The State's lawyer disagreed, saying that the new bail request wasn't allowed under the law because it was the second one.
After hearing both sides, the Court said that the law doesn't specifically say whether second bail requests are allowed. So, the Court can't just make up rules against them.
They referred to a previous case where it was decided that just because one bail request was rejected, doesn't mean another can't be considered later.
The Court explained that for a second bail request to be considered, there must be significant new information. In this case, the new photos weren't enough to justify a second request.
They concluded that the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner meant that bail couldn't be granted, even if there was no evidence to be found against him.
The Court clarified that while second bail requests are allowed, they must be based on significant new information, which was lacking in this case. So, the request was denied.
