Mandeep Lamba Alias Mandy v. State Of Punjab
!
!
"
"
"
# $ # %&'%( )*+,-.
$
%
&'(
*+, - #'. #/ ## /0/'
'/' '0. #&( #&1 +
/2 /.
%
#121 ! 3!
4 3! !
%%
/ ) *+,
6
! " #$
% &
'
'
(
(
)
(
(
*&
)
!+!!$ % , (-
'
'
!.
/ (
,
, , & ,
*
%
,
/.
0
,
*1
*
*
*
/
*
% ,
*(&.2 34
% %
+%(- ( .
*$(- 6
,
&
*
* * !
"*7 '
*0.%0.'*0 0 1%-2&( *( .-% 3%.'.'*0%4 5 !
!!) %! 3 )
)
! * !) ! *+, 3 ! ! ! 3 %! 0 1%-2&( *( .-% .2.% 5
!
)
)
)
! ! !
% % !) & 02&5)') 4 %), without going into the merits, a mere reference is sufficient enough to record that actually the case was heard at length during the course of hearing of first anticipatory bail petition(Annexure P-3) and there is no such change of factual aspects or any other new ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner today before this Court.
Accordingly, the second or subsequent bail application under S &'( Cr.P.C., can be filed, 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 and the same has been reiterated by the Apex
3
!
33 3 %ts of the case, the second application for anticipatory bail is non maintainable until and unless there is change in the circumstances. %6')'*0 This Court is, therefore, of the considered view after having examined the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., this petition fails. Hence, holding that second anticipatory bail in such circumstances is not maintainable, the petition is ordered to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. #
$
$
.
.
.