CHANDRASHEKHAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE case diary of Crime No. 9/2000 of P. S. Masturi (Bilaspur) relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I. P. C. perused.

(3.) THE learned Court below has rejected the application mainly on the ground that an application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on 4-2-2000 and since thereafter there was no change in the circumstance, the applicants would not be entitled for an order of bail. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below did not try to appreciate the distinction between Section 438, Cr. P. C. and Section 439, Cr. P. C. The most important change which occurred in the circumstance was that the applicants were arrested on 8-2-2000. No Court can loose sight of the fact that considerations which may persuade a Court to grant bail under Section 439, Cr. P. C. , are always different and sometimes may be irrelevant for grant of Order under Section 438, Cr. P. C. Simply because an application under Section 438, Cr. P. C. stands rejected, the right of the applicants to be released on bail under Section 439, Cr. P. C. cannot be turned out. In a given case a Magistrate, even after rejection of an application under Section 438, Cr. P. C. , may grant bail to the accused under Section 437, Cr. P. C. A Court should always remember that the "changed circumstance" does not simply mean an absolute overhaul in the circumstances but simply means that something creeping up which may persuade the discretion of the Judge hearing the application to grant bail in favour of the accused.