Full Judgment
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 281-1983. FIR No. 416/82, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and (sic)08, IPC 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 Deep Dayal caught hold of Govari Lal and Dhan Raj caught hold of Hari Ram and thereafter Nathulal inflicted on the right side of the head of Gavarilal whereas Ram Gopal inflicted a blow on his left of the back. Accused Ram Kumar wanted to hit on his bead by the chair. Ram Gopal inflicted a blow by a fist on hose of Govarilal which slatted bleeding and there was swelling. The injury report shows that Gopal received injuries by a blunt object and was described as under:
Contusion swelling around nose with marked tenderness. H.O. bleeding from nose.
X-ray was advised and it was found that there was a fracture of nose. On this launching of FIR. 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 Section 438 Cr P.C. before this Court which was decided on 28-1-83; and the accused persons, namely, Nathulal, Ram Kumar, Deen Dayal and Dhin Raj were granted anticipatory bail Under Section 4-8, Cr. P.C., but the bail application of petitioner Ram Gopal was rejected, because, it as 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 tie ground that his earlier bail application has been rejected by this Court. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner then referred to Babu Singh v. State of U.P. : 1978 CriLJ651 , in which it has been observed that order refusing bail does not bar fresh application on later occasion giving more details, further developments and dirt, rent 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 appeal before the Supreme Court and his earlier bail application was rejected by the Supreme Court on 7-9-1977, & 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 v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 214 and other several English cases. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also (sic) on a reported decision of this Court in Nahar Singh v. State of Rajasthan I 83 RLR 88, 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 hyper tension and chest pain.
3. 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 content in of the learned Public Prosecutor that second bail application is not mainainable. 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 there are some additional grounds, or some further developments and different considerations & if some more details are available at a latter 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.
4. 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. 2500/- each to the satisfaction of arresting officer/SHO/investigating officer for his appearance before the investigating officer for investigating 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.