Can’t file second bail plea on previously available grounds: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an accused cannot file a second bail plea using grounds that were already available during the first petition. The court ruled that such grounds could not be raised again, as they did not count as a significant change in circumstances needed for bail.

The ruling is significant as it reinforces that successive bail pleas are not barred, but must be based on a material and substantive change in circumstances that emerged after the first plea was withdrawn or dismissed. Facts available but not argued in the first plea cannot be dubbed as substantive change in circumstances while seeking bail subsequently.

Dismissing the second bail petition of an accused in a POCSO case, Justice Sumeet Goel held: “The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner with respect to the allegations being not made out from prima facie reading of evidence; inordinate delay in recording of FIR; the allegations being not substantiated in the counselling report, were available to the petitioner at the time when the first petition for regular bail was dismissed.”

An FIR in the matter was registered on June 14, 2024, under the provisions of the POCSO Act at the North police station in Chandigarh after the “victim” boy’s mother levelled serious allegations of sexually assault against a shopkeeper. The Bench was told that the boy had gone to buy pens at the time of the incident.

Justice Goel asserted the previously available grounds could not be considered as substantial change in circumstances indicating that the petitioner was entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of regular bail. The court clarified that there was no statutory bar on filing a second or successive bail petition, but such a plea was required to be accompanied by a genuine change in circumstances to justify reconsideration.

Justice Goel referred to a high court’s earlier judgment as saying: “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 ones seeking regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions.

Justice Goel also cited Supreme Court precedents to say rejection of a bail petition “does not, by itself, forbid a court from considering another one, later in point of time”. But it must be “essentially and pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances, and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.”

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Goel asserted the accused sought bail on the ground of alleged discrepancies in the cross-examination of the complainant and non-substantiation of allegations in the counselling report.

“The only fresh ground (change in circumstances) after the dismissal of earlier bail petition on September 27, 2024, is with respect to alleged discrepancies in the cross-examination of the complainant-mother of the victim. It is not appropriate for this Court, at this stage, to delve deep into this contention,” Justice Goel asserted.

The court ruled even if it was assumed that there were discrepancies in the cross-examination of the victim, this by itself would not be a sufficient cause to grant regular bail to the petitioner.