Successive regular bail petitions are maintainable, despite prior dismissals: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 24

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that second or successive regular bail petitions are maintainable in law, irrespective of prior dismissals. But the accused was required to demonstrate a substantial and consequential change in circumstances for the plea to succeed.

Justice Sumeet Goel also ruled that exhaustive guidelines could not define what constituted a substantial change in circumstances as every case had its own unique facts and circumstance. Making such an attempt was nothing but “utopian endeavour” and the issue was best left to the judicial wisdom and court’s discretion.

For ensuring transparency and accountability in the legal process, Justice Goel also ruled that clear and cogent reasons were required to accompany the decision to grant bail. “The cause for a court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the order passed”.

In his detailed order, Justice Goel elaborated second or successive regular bail petitions were maintainable regardless of the fact that the earlier was dismissed as withdrawn, dismissed as not pressed, dismissed for non-prosecution or on merits.

Showing a mere superficial or ostensible change would not be sufficient for the second or successive regular bail petition to succeed as the applicant was essentially and pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances.

Justice Goel asserted the paramount issue in any regular bail plea was an individual’s liberty. Liberty was indubitably cherished foundational principle within “our society and jurisprudence and had fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order”.

The principle was made conspicuous within the framework of the Constitution. Article 21 emphasized that no individual should be deprived of personal liberty except through procedure established by law.

The CrPC permitted curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. It was imperative to ensure that the liberty of the accused did not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, to live a dignified life free from fear or threat. The rights of `the collective of individuals’, the State/society at large, also could not be neglected.

Justice Goel asserted: “While countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a bail plea, the court ought to take into account this core concept. An analytical perusal of the CrPC explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking regular bail”.

Justice Goel added once there was no statutory prohibition provided for in the law, a court was not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law.