Dake Sudhakar, Rajahmundry., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 650 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                     MAIN CASE: Crl.A.No.402 of 2017


                             PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                              ORDER                            OFFICE
NO.                                                                         NOTE

11.   04.02.2022   RNT,J
                                  (through virtual mode)
                                   I.A.No.1 of 2021

                           This application has been filed for regular
                   bail by the petitioner/appellant.
                           Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for
                   the   petitioner/appellant,    submits   that     the
                   petitioner/appellant is in jail since 23.05.2015.
                   He further submits that two Autos from which the
                   contraband is said to have been recovered were
                   not produced before the court below.
                           The    first   bail    application      being
                   Crl.A.M.P.No.838 of 2017 was rejected by this
                   court on merits, by order, dated 30.10.2017. On
                   the query of the court if that ground was taken in
                   the earlier application for bail, the learned
                   counsel submits that no such ground was taken
                   while arguing the first bail application filed along
                   with the appeal.
                           On the query of the court, if the said
                   ground for bail being available at the time of
                   consideration of the first bail application, was not
                   taken, is it open to the petitioner/appellant to
                   raise such ground in the second or subsequent
                   bail application, learned counsel submits that in
                   spite of the above such a ground can be taken for
                   bail in the second/subsequent bail application.
                           Per contra, the learned Spl.Asst.Public
                   Prosecutor, for the respondent/State, submits

that if a ground which was available but was not taken and the application for bail was rejected

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE considering the grounds raised, it would not be open to file second or subsequent application on such ground, which was not taken though available, as it would not be a changed circumstance since after the rejection of the first bail application. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Pal Singh v. State of U.P. {reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 427}.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant seeks time to place relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in support of his contention, noted the above.

List on 09.02.2022.

_________ RNT, J Dsr