Rajasthan High Court
Sh. Shishupal Dukiya S/O Sevaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 19922/2021
Sh. Shishupal Dukiya S/o Sevaram, R/o 9 Pashchim Mohalla
Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhavati Ps Ramganj Sethan Dist. Sikar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta
Mr. Deepak Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
17/12/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment
passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Raj
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) WLC 327
to submit that the second bail application would be maintainable
and would not be barred either under Section 362 Cr.P.C. or
otherwise.
Learned counsel submits that there is a change
circumstance. The FIR No.612/2016 was registered on 14.07.2016
and the role of the petitioner is limited only to the allegation of
having submitted documents to the JDA which are allegedly said
to be forged.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is always ready
to participate in the investigation and there is no occasion to
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-19922/2021]
arrest him for the said purpose and he should therefore be
granted pre-arrest bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and
submits that there is no change circumstance in between the
earlier bail application which was rejected under Section 438
Cr.P.C. and the present one. He further submits that as per the
case diary the decision has been taken to submit the charge-sheet
under Section 299 as against the petitioner and therefore, the bail
application ought not be allowed. He further submits that there
are other four cases pending against the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions.
In Ganesh Raj (supra) the Full Bench of this Court was asked
to answer the question "whether second or subsequent bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not?". The
Full Bench after considering the entire law in relation to the
aspects ultimately held as under:-
"25. In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on
the ratio indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case
(supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if
there is a change in the fact situation or in law which
requires the earlier view being interfered with or where
the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the
limited area in which an accused who has been denied
bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Second
or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be
entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further
developments, different considerations, some more
details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under
no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory
bail application shall be entertained by the Section
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge."
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-19922/2021]
Thus, for filing of second bail application it is essentially for
the petitioner to place before this Court the change in the facts
situation or in law which requires the earlier view to be interfered
with.
Keeping in view aforesaid principle this case is examined and
this Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner remains
the same what it was alleged in the FIR. The petitioner has not
been given before this Court any document or any other change
circumstance to show that the role alleged in the FIR has been
changed on account of any statements recorded of any person.
In view thereof and keeping the principles of Ganesh Raj
(supra) in mind, this Court is of the firm view that the second bail
application would not be entertained and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
