The Allahabad High Court in the case Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another observed that the person can move subsequent bail anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.
The bench headed by Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan in the case observed and has held that there is no restriction on moving subsequent anticipatory bail applications if there is a change in circumstances.
The court noted that there being no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure on moving subsequent regular bail applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC.
The court granted the anticipatory bail to two accused (Shahjad and Peena) who are apprehending their arrest in a case of abetment to suicide.
Further, the bench rejected the contention raised by AGA that the second anticipatory bail application of the applicants was not maintainable.
Background of the Case:
The FIR was lodged against the applicants, who being the mother of the deceased levelled various allegations concerning the fact that only a day before marriage they refused to solemnize the marriage with her daughter on the pretext that Rs. one Lakh as agreed were not paid.
It has also been alleged in the FIR lodged that the applicants humiliated the deceased, due to which she died by suicide.
The appellant had earlier moved the High Court wherein they were granted interim protection from arrest till the submission of a police report as stated under Section 173 (2) CrPC liberty of the applicants was protected, while seeking the anticipatory bail in the case.
Therefore, the chargesheet was filed before the date on which the final order was passed in the first Anticipatory Bail, under some bonafide belief, the Coordinate Bench could not be informed about the submissions of the charge sheet.
Further, the second pre-arrest bail plea was moved by the applicants which being on the ground that they had cooperated in the investigation due to which the Investigating Officer did not find any opportunity or occasion to arrest them and thus, they sought their liberty be protected during the trial as well.
Observations Made By Court:
The court also referred to the case Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT Of Delhi) and others and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, wherein the court observed that as per the scheme provided in the CrPC, moving of successive bail application and anticipatory bail applications are not barred, if there is change in the circumstances.
The court stated that the charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and nothing had been brought in the knowledge of the court which may suggest that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation, thus, the Court deemed it fit to grant them the benefit of anticipatory bail.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants under any process of the trial court or on their appearance or surrender before the trial court within 20 days, whichever is earlier, they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.
Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bai plea.
