The Supreme Court has emphasized that a High Court cannot reject a bail application solely on the basis that the Apex Court had not explicitly permitted the filing of a fresh application.
Reaffirming a fundamental legal principle, the Court underscored that an individual retains the right to file a fresh bail application, even after the rejection of a previous bail plea or the cancellation of an earlier granted bail. The judicial system recognizes this right as an essential safeguard to ensure that changing circumstances, new evidence, or legal grounds can be duly considered in determining an individual's entitlement to bail.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that an individual possesses the inherent right to file a fresh bail application, even in cases where a previous bail plea has been rejected or where bail, once granted, has subsequently been cancelled. The Court clarified that the exercise of this right cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that the Apex Court had not explicitly permitted the filing of a fresh bail application.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that a High Court is not justified in dismissing a bail application solely on this premise. The judicial process must allow for the reconsideration of bail based on evolving circumstances, new legal arguments, or fresh evidence that may emerge after the rejection or cancellation of a prior bail plea. Any blanket refusal to entertain a fresh bail application without assessing its merits would be contrary to the principles of justice and due process, which safeguards an individual’s right to seek liberty through the legal system.
In this case, the petitioner was initially granted bail by the High Court. However, upon further examination, the Supreme Court intervened and subsequently canceled the bail that had been granted. Notably, while canceling the bail, the Supreme Court did not explicitly grant the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application.
Relying on this aspect, the High Court refused to entertain the petitioner's second bail application, holding that in the absence of specific permission from the Apex Court, a fresh bail plea could not be considered. This decision effectively denied the petitioner an opportunity to present any new facts, changed circumstances, or legal grounds that might have justified reconsideration of bail.
The High Court’s refusal raised important legal questions regarding the fundamental right of an individual to seek bail, particularly in situations where a prior bail order had been revoked. The matter underscored the principle that the right to file a fresh bail application should not be rendered contingent upon explicit authorization from the Supreme Court, especially when new developments or circumstances warrant a reassessment of the bail plea.
Disapproving of the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court said: "There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit."
The High Court's order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
info@adhwaitha.com
