Allahabad High Court
Suresh Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43375 of 2015
Applicant :- Suresh Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Vipin Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2013, under Sections 376, 323 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 24.9.2015.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Counsel for the applicant has tried to argue the case on merits again. I am afraid but the law does not permit the same course. Once the merits of the case have already been gone into, the same cannot be raked up again and again. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that certain aspect of the case has not been argued during the first bail application. In this respect of the matter also, the view is settled and does not admit of any controversy. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3294 of 2010-Girind Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others that the grounds which existed at the time of the rejection of the first bail application cannot be treated to be fresh grounds at all. A reference can also be made to the Division Bench judgment reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 3709, Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. In this case, the following question came up to be decided after being referred by a Single Judge Bench.
" Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected ?"
The background behind the aforesaid reference made to the Division Bench was that in an earlier case Gama Vs. State of U.P., 1978 CRI.L.J. 242, it had been held that-
"Even though it may be second or third bail application, but unless it is apparent from a reading of the first bail order that the point urged in the subsequent bail applications was also considered and rejected, it can not be said that the point urged in the second or third bail application would be deemed to have been considered in the first bail application just by implication."
When the aforesaid question was referred, the Division Bench adverted to the same and after hearing and considering all the relevant laws on this point, overruled the view taken by the Single Judge in Gama Vs. State (supra). It was held by the Division Bench that-
"fresh arguments in the second bail application for an accused can not be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected."
In the background of the aforesaid case laws, this Court has reason to hold that when the Court on a former occasion has already considered the bail matter on merits and has found no prima face case in favour of the accused, there is no question now to reconsider the point of bail on the same facts and grounds for that will simply amount to review or recall of the first order. A new ground on merits does not mean an argument raised by a new counsel or an argument by same counsel on a subsequent occasion, which could not be argued on earlier occasion. When the Court goes through the record and hears both the parties and passes a judgment on merit, it is deemed to have gone through all the relevant aspect of the case. Otherwise, there can not be any discipline, check or end in moving fresh bail applications every second day on the ground that one or the other point could not be argued. It has been further held by the division Bench that the bail orders by their very nature are not supposed to be very lengthy and it is not always possible for the Courts to write in bail orders all what they have seen in the record and considered even though the counsel might have argued and referred to it. Further submission of the A.G.A. is that the relevant details have already been discussed while rejecting the first bail application and, therefore, there is no justification to enter into the merits of the case again.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the second bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 21.12.2015
Rmk.
