Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Laiq Parvez Ex-General Manager DIC Pulwama.
As the verification revealed that Laiq Parvaiz during his posting as GM DIC Pulwama, made allotments of land in favor of various unit holders in gross violation of industrial policy 2016 as well as procedural guidelines of 2017. As per industrial policy of 2016, the allotment of land to unit holders and execution of lease deeds was the domain of SICOP/SIDCO. General Manager not only issued allotment orders qua the land in violation of rules but also executed lease deeds thereof with the unit holders which in view of rules, was within the competence SICOP/SIDCO. By acting in this manner the said General Manager DIC Pulwama abused his official position for ulterior motives, in league with the unit holders and thus conferred undue benefits upon the unit holders.
The aforementioned facts constituted Commission of offences Punishable under section 5 (1)(d) r/w 5(2) of J&K P.C Act Svt. 2006 and section 120-B RPC. Consequently, a case under FIR No. 03/2020 was registered against said General Manager District Industries, Centre, Pulwama and others in P/S Anti Corruption Bureau South Kashmir (Anantnag).
Justice Magrey has ruled that a bail plea on the grounds rejected earlier by a Court cannot be entertained unless there was a substantial change in the fact situation or law.’
“Change in fact situation would never mean any new or additional ground which was earlier available to the accused but that was not taken on the earlier occasion,” said a bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey.
Pointing out that in the case before it there was no change of circumstance, the Court said it was a case whereupon consideration of the material on record and submissions by parties, the Court of competent jurisdiction had consciously rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant on merits.
“There is nothing on record nor any argument has been advanced on behalf of the applicant to show that there has been any substantial change of circumstances after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application which would necessitate reconsideration of the prayer afresh,” the Court said.
Court held that the analogy for entertaining a subsequent or second application for bail or anticipatory bail when it was earlier rejected, the consideration would be the same. “The change of the fact situation may differ from case to case,” it said.
Court after hearing both the sides is of the view that the Courts should be too slow to allow the second application of a party for anticipatory bail where the earlier one has been rejected and there is no substantial change of circumstance or event” Justice Magrey said. “Repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail after rejection by the competent court after invoking the power of review of the decision of the earlier court may lead to judicial anarchy about which caution has been sounded by the apex Court in umpteen judicial dictums.”
While dismissing the application, the Court however made it clear that its order should not come in the way of the accused to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking regular bail. JNF