ANIL T K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in both these cases is one and the same person. He is the second accused in NDPS Crime No. 17 of 2013 of Narcotics Enforcement Squad, Adimaly and the sole accused in NDPS Crime No. 1 of 2014 of Excise Enforcement and Anti narcotic Squad, Idukki. Though the transactions in both these cases are independent, the developments that took place after the registration of the cases make it necessary to consider them together.

(2.) In NDPS Crime No. 1 of 2014 the applicant filed B.A. No. 1266 of 2014 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. By the order passed on 28.2.2014 this court dismissed the application.

(3.) Ordinarily a second Bail Application is not maintainable unless there is some subsequent development. The change of circumstance pleaded in the second application is that the Excise Commissioner forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of Excise for enquiry a complaint sent to him by the brothers and close relatives of the applicant alleging that the accusation against him is false and the applicant bonafide believes that the enquiry would reveal that he was falsely implicated in the cases. It is pertinent to note that the applicant had a belief that the report of the enquiry would end in his favour. But that cannot be a ground to maintain a second bail application. An accused in any case may cause a complaint to be sent to the superior officers of the investigating officer alleging his false implication to enable him to file a second bail application. On this ground alone this application could be dismissed.