JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The first bail application moved by the petitioner before this court was rejected by a detailed order dated 12.03.2003, a copy of the same has been placed by the petitioner at page 44 of the paper book. Thereafter, a second bail application being CRL.M.(M) 4919/2003 had been moved and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.01.2005. This is the third application for bail. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc v Rajesh Ranjan 2005 AIR SCW 536 in paragraphs 19 and 20 has observed as under:
” 19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a co-ordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same it would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.
20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country.”
From the aforesaid, it is clear that issues which have been canvassed earlier would not ordinarily be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds and, though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. No such circumstances have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner apart from the fact that some more time has elapsed during which the petitioner has been in incarceration.
In this view of the matter, this application stands rejected.