9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicants, who are real brothers, are alleged to have subjected Sumitra, wife of applicant No. 1, to cruelty and torture so as to coerce her parents to meet their unlawful demand of gold and other valuables and since their demand was not fulfilled, they allegedly committed her murder on 13.3.2004. Sumitra died of extensive burn injuries. She implicated the applicants in her dying declaration recorded after the occurrence. The applicants were arrested in connection with the said crime on 14.4.2004. They filed an application seeking bail on 5.5.2004 which came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on 13.5.2004. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 4.6.2004. After filing of the chargesheet, the applicants filed anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he chargesheet and decided the application afresh. 6. It is observed that Courts often take a view that filing of the chargesheet is not a substantial change of circumstance. sometimes Courts refuse to enter into the merits of the case or allow the Advocate appearing for the accused to urge his contentions on the basis of the material supplied along with the chargesheet. Therefore, I would like to consider the question as to whether or not filing of the chargesheet is a substantive change necessitating Courts to decide the application seeking bail, filed after the chargesheet, on merits even if the earlier application/applications for bail were considered and rejected by the Court after perusing the material collected by the investigating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the bail application was once rejected and it cannot be said that the Court is barred from second consideration at a later stage. The Apex Court has taken such view in Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1978CriLJ651 . In yet another judgment, the Apex Court in Dilip Shankar Koli and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra held that "there is no scientific formula in the matter of reconsideration of application for bail nor are there any rigid consideration as such. There is no uniform test which alone can govern matters of bail. Indeed, a matter of bail is one where the position will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Indeed, in the very same proceedings, circumstances can go on changing one way or the other and there can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res to consider whether the accused should be continued in custody even after the investigation is over. This change, in the approach of the Court after filing of the chargesheet towards evaluating the need of keeping the accused in custody, should be termed as substantial change. It is open for the Court to take similar view which was taken while rejecting earlier application for bail made before filing of the chargesheet. However, in my opinion, it is not open for the Court to hold that filing of the chargesheet is not a substantive change of circumstance and refuse to enter into merits of the case. The Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant or his advocate to argue an application for bail on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
