The High Court dismissed a bail application in connection with an FIR registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The applicant contended that the victim was drunk and fell down in the well, but the complainant had got up the story of throttle and thrown. It was vehemently contended that there was no mark of resistance found on the body of the victim, only one nail injury was found on the neck of the victim, so it is an only plausible explanation to the fact that he was not killed as relied on the prosecution and therefore, the present application may be released on bail. The respondent submitted that this was a successive bail application and previous bail application was withdrawn. In the present application, the applicant has not stated anything about the previous withdrawal, so the successive bail application was not maintainable, except there is a change in circumstances.

The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 where it was held that,

"this Court also observed that though the accused has a right to make a successive application for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application."

The Court while dismissing the application observed that the previous bail application was withdrawn after the filing of charge sheet and this bail application is also filed after filing of charge sheet. The advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any change in the circumstances, thus no ground is made out by the petitioner.