Gurmit Kaur @ Meeto v. State Of Punjab
!"#"$%&%'(
()*+++
!
"
# $ #
+,-. /0 % &
'
(
" )*+
$ ( , # # -.-+/0
1$,23
#
' '" 04, *- %5.6-.-+
" -- , "
" ("
" "
" %6*5/
7, "83 '"
"9 &
'
(
: -.6))-.-5
( :
! -..5-.-5 -
''
%5.6-.-+ %.; <" = =
"
"
=
"
"
"
""
> =
$' $ =
= '
=
%-) %%5 "!
'(
<" =
&
= < ' 9 =
' %;%%-.-) -%.%-.-5& '
+ 4 ('
"
'
"
'
! ?
'
'
(
"
" =
<
;*( ' ! '
" (
%% , ' = ' !
(#
" ( ( 4
!
'
' ) @ !
" '
!
'( "#&
!
'"
"" "
" ' &
''
4
!
''
= 5 & :
"
! ' ; &
'
=
"
"" = "
" "
" 'A ( "
< '
"
%;%%-.-)
1
' = " "
''
&
! '
(
-..5-.-5&
""
!
'
.+ -; (
&
" '
"
!" "
! , "
"
The well settled proposition of law is that for the successive bail petition to succeed, the petitioner must show some substantial change in circumstances. Showing of a superficial change would not suffice. Cogent and lucid reasons are required to be given and recorded for granting such plea. However, no such substantial change in circumstances has been pointed out by the petitioner's counsel nor made out from the record. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for allowing the petition is made out. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7.
It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
-+0
# C C,
'
C,