Ashish Maheshwari S/O Late Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3585 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5320/2022

Ashish Maheshwari S/o Late Sh. Prakash Maheshwari, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o C-24G, Delhi Police Apartment, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-I, Delhi-91
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, (Notice To Be Served Through The Learned
Public Prosecutor.)
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Saini, Public Prosecutor Mr. Surendra Singh, Advocate for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

06/05/2022 This 2nd anticipatory bail application has been filed

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 0010/2022

registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar for the

offences under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 120-B of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not

the case of the complainant that the accused-persons including

the petitioner have used the cheques/MoU's and/or presented the

cheques for payment in the bank where the complainant maintains

his account. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant

has falsely stated that there were two stamp papers, in-fact there

were four stamp papers and all were purchased by the

complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5320/2022]

totally innocent and he is not, directly or indirectly, involved in the

offence-in-question. Learned counsel also submits that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Hence, the

anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be

granted.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has

opposed the bail application and during the course of arguments,

he has produced the factual report. As per the factual report,

offences under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of IPC were

found against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly

opposed the bail application and has placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the full Bench of this Court in the case of

Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2005(2) WLC 327.

Para 25 of the said judgment reads 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-5320/2022]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as

withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2022 and since

then there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the

case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

complainant (supra), wherein, it has been held that if there is no

change in the facts and circumstances of the case, the second and

subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be

filed. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances of

the case; but without expressing any opinion on the merits and

demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to enlarge the

petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Hence, the 2nd anticipatory bail application of the

petitioner is hereby dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

Ashish Kumar /76

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)