..1..

Cri.M.A.No.669/2022
Order below Exh.01 in Cri.B.A.No.669/2022
CNR No.MHNS010026312022
(Sharad Maruti Changle vs. State)
The applicant has preferred this second anticipatory bail
praying therein that he may be released on bail in the event of
arrest in connection with CR.No.I­74/2014 registered with Kalwan
police station for the offence punishable under Sec.302, 120B, 143,
147, 139, 149 of IPC and Sec.3/25, 4/25, 27 of Arms Act and
Sec.135 of Maharashtra Police Act on the basis of FIR lodged by
148, 149 of IPC and under Sec.3/25, 4/25, 27 of The Arms Act and
under Sec.135 of Maharashtra Police Act, on the basis of FIR lodged
by Smt.Manika Kiran Kale.
2.

Second bail application is filed on the ground that the
applicant is residing in above mentioned address along with his
family members. The charge was framed on 4.9.2011. 20 witnesses
were examined. After perusal of evidence of these 20 witnesses,
there is no material against him. Investigation is completed in the
year 2014. That the trial of arrested accused persons resulted in
acquitted. That earlier anticipatory bail application No. 1404/2021
was rejected. Now lot of time has passed since this rejection. There
is no question of tampering prosecution evidence. That on certain
terms and conditions, bail application be granted.
3.

Notice was issued to State. State appeared through Ld. APP
Mr. Kotwal and filed say resisting for grant of application on the
grounds that the applicant­accused is absconding since long. He was
..2..

Cri.M.A.No.669/2022
part of conspiracy and also committed criminal overt act. As per
memorandum given by Yogesh Shevare, the present applicant has
fired at him. The offence is serious in nature. That the fire­arm used
in the crime is to be seized. On these main grounds and others,
have prayed to reject bail application.
4.

Ld. Advocate Mr.Kasaliwal for applicant reiterated all
the grounds mentioned in the bail application. He further submitted
that change in circumstance means change in law, facts and
circumstance of the case. Further he stressed that the other accused
persons are acquitted and therefore, the natural result will be
acquittal of the present applicant and therefore, second anticipatory
bail needs to be granted. Furthermore, he argued that after 7 years,
there cannot be recovery. Hence, has ultimately prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail. Mr.Kalisaliwal further relied upon Vineeth vs.
State of Kerala reported in 2016 All M.R. [Crime] 140.

Per
contra Ld.APP Mr.Kotwal reiterated all the grounds mentioned in
say filed by the police and ultimately prayed for rejection of bail
application.
5.

It is matter of record that this Court itself has
rejected the earlier bail application No. 1404/2021, preferred by the
present applicant vide order dated 12.11.2021. All the contentions
which were argued by the Ld.Adv.Mr.Kasaliwal were also argued by
the then advocate for applicant Mr.Wani. After considering the
conduct of the accused of absconding for seven years and taking
altogether false contention that he had become ‘Sadhu’, bail
application was rejected.

..3..

6.

Cri.M.A.No.669/2022
Recently, G.R.Ananda Babu V/s. The State of Tamil
Nadu and Anr. Three Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
arising out of Spl.Cri.No.213 of 2021 decided on 28.01.2021 has
observed that, “As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail
application ought not to be entertained and moreso, in the case
diary and the status report, clearly indicates that accused
(respondent no.2) is absconding and not co­operating with the
investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances
cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail application. Once
it is rejected by speaking order and that too by the same Judge”.
7.

The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
that the specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be
invoked for successive anticipatory bail application. Once it is
rejected by speaking order and that too by the same Judge. As far as
citation relied upon by Ld.Adv. Mr.Kasaliwal is concerned, firstly, it
is observed that primarily it has to be established by the applicant in
second application that there is material change in facts, situation
which makes him entitle to seek the relief. The applicant should
establish change in circumstance sufficient to persuade the court to
invoke its extra­ordinary jurisdiction in favour of it. No such change
in circumstances which would persuade to grant him anticipatory
bail is made out. Even otherwise, the view taken by Hon’ble Kerala
High Court is in the year 2016 whereas Hon’ble Supreme Court has
given aforesaid guidelines to the subordinate judiciary in the year
2021.

..4..

8.

Cri.M.A.No.669/2022
Even after rejection of his earlier bail application in the
month of November, 2021, the present applicant did not approach
the Hon’ble High Court or surrender before the police. He kept on
evading his arrest. Considering the ratio laid down by Higher
Courts, the protection of pre­arrest bail cannot be extended to the
present applicant. Hence, following order is passed :
ORDER
(1).

Application stands rejected.
VARDHAN
PRATAPRAO
DESAI
Nashik.
Date : 09.06.2022
Digitally signed by
VARDHAN
PRATAPRAO DESAI
Date: 2022.06.09
16:07:38 +0530
( V. P. Desai)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.