Uttarakhand High Court
Gariba Mahto vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
THIRD BAIL APPLICATION No.10673 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.99 of 2017
Gariba Mahto ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mrs. Chetna
Latwal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy
Advocate General along with Ms.
Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder.
Corum: Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral)
This is the Third Bail Application. The first bail
application was rejected on 26.07.2017, and, the
second bail application was rejected on 29.10.2018 on
merits.
2. The appellant, namely, Gariba Mahto, has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
489B of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years along with a fine of `5,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC vide
the judgment dated 25.03.2017/ 29.03.2017, passed by
the Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 12 of
2016. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently
3. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mrs. Chetna Latwal, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Gemini, the
learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mrs.
Meena Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated; there is no reliable evidence to show
that the appellant used as genuine forged or counterfeit
currency-note and the appellant is in custody since
04.08.2016.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State has opposed the present third bail application. He
submitted that the prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution; there is no
reason to implicate the appellant, therefore, the
appellant has rightly been convicted. He argued that the
present third bail application is not maintainable,
because all these contentions were raised by the
appellant at the time of the arguments on the first and
the second bail applications.
6. It would be appropriate to consider the
conduct of the appellant at this stage as well. In the
present third bail application, the appellant has sought
parity with the co-accused, without mentioning that
the said co-accused was enlarged on bail for the
offence, committed by him, under Section 489C of
IPC.
7. It is true that successive bail applications are
permissible under the changed circumstances. But,
without the change in the circumstances, the second
bail application would be deemed to be seeking review
of the earlier order, which is not permissible under
criminal law.
8. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain
Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, ".....Once that
application was rejected there was no question of
granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the
earlier decision without there being a change in the
fact-situation. And when we speak of change, we mean
a substantial one which has a direct impact on the
earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which
are of little or no consequence. ......"
9. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad,
(2001)7 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that it is true that successive bail applications are
permissible under the changed circumstances. But
without the change in the circumstances, the second
bail application would be deemed to be seeking review
of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under
criminal law.
10. The appellant had opportunity to raise all his
contentions on the previous occasion and according to
the learned counsel for the State, he had actually raised
the said contentions. Therefore, it is not open to the
appellant to make successive bail applications even on
the grounds already rejected.
11. On overall consideration, we do not find any
substantial change in the circumstances to entertain the
present third bail application. The third bail application
does not deserve to be entertained. Consequently, the
third bail application is rejected.
12. At the request of the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant, list this matter on
17.08.2022 for final hearing.
____________________
Sharad Kumar Shamra, J.
_________________
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Dt: 04th July, 2022
AK/SB
