There is no bar in successive bail applications being moved for consideration by the Courts. There is no time limit set for moving the court for bail, after the first bail application is rejected. However, it should be only when some new facts and circumstances have developed after rejection of the previous bail application, then only the second bail application should be considered on merit.
For example, filing of charge sheet, examination of a substantial number of witnesses by court, etc., can be fresh grounds. While the mere fact of a few months having elapsed after rejection of bail application may not necessarily be a fresh ground for second bail application, there are cases in which this ground has been considered by the courts for granting bail when second bail application was filed after a few months of the first bail application. But, the fact remains that there is no specific time limit mentioned in law or judgments. It is a discretionary power which depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
In any case, successive bail applications by an accused are not barred as there is nothing like a principle of res judicata operating in the field but there must be a substantial change in the fact situation for the court to entertain a subsequent bail application. Where there is no substantial change in fact situation thereafter necessitating release of accused on bail, order granting bail would be illegal.
In the case of Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 615, the Supreme Court held that the fact that earlier bail applications had been rejected would not make the fresh bail application legally not maintainable. The Court can always consider fresh circumstances and subsequent events.
Likewise, in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : AIR 2004 SC 1866 : 2004 Cri LJ 1796, the Supreme Court held 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 what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.
And, in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, AIR 2001 SC 3317 : (2001) 7 SCC 673, it was held that it is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law.
[Note: These citations have been taken from my book: Law of Bail, Bonds, Arrest and Custody (2009 Edition), appx. 1625 pages, published by LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, New Delhi (ISBN: 978-81-8038-440-0).]
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
