IMPORTANT POINT
Though accused has right to make successive applications for grant of bail, court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider reasons and grounds on which earlier bail applications were rejected.

ORDER (ORAL)

This is a successive bail application, which is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No. 111910-20201399 registered with Vastrapur police station, Ahmedabad city for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 365, 384, 342, 325, 354A, 323, 294(b), 506(2), 199 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.

Crux of the FIR:

2. The first informant filed the FIR in question against her husband and three others, wherein she has mainly stated that she got married with the original accused no.1 in the year 2011 and a girl child viz., Arya was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that one year after the marriage, the original accused no.1 started mentally and physically harassing the first informant. It is mainly alleged that on the occasion of the birthday of the daughter of the first informant i.e. on 1.8.2020 at around 11.00 p.m., when she, along with her other relatives were present, original accused nos.2 and 3 started taunting the first informant that she did not bring anything from her parental house. Thereafter, the original accused no.4, who is the father of the first informant, gave abuses to the first informant. It is also alleged that because of the instigation done at the behest of original accused no.4, original accused no.1 started quarreling with the first informant and gave abuses to the mother of the first informant. When the first informant tried to stop the original accused no.1-husband from speaking abusive language, it is alleged that original accused no.1-husband had given six-seven slaps on her face and fist blow on her nose. It is alleged that the accused persons in connivance with each other, thrown the first informant and her mother out of the house and gave threats that if she will file police complaint, she will be done to death.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Akash A. Singh for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mitesh Amin assisted by learned APP Ms. Maithali Mehta for the respondent – State.

Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant:

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is arrested on 29.08.2020 in connection with the FIR in question and since then, he is in jail. It is submitted that after his arrest, the applicant had filed an application for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.17130/2020 before this Court, however during the pendency of the said application, as the chargesheet was filed, the said application was withdrawn. He further submitted that after filing of the chargesheet, the applicant filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.20180/2020 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 17.02.2021, rejected the said application, however while rejecting the said application, this Court granted liberty to the applicant to file fresh application after a period of three months and, therefore, the applicant has filed present successive bail application.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would thereafter submit that after this Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant, recently the co-accused, Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.10438/2021. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to relevant observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging the co-accused on bail. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that the role attributed to the present applicant is lesser than the role attributed to the said co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and thus on the ground of parity, the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. Learned Senior Counsel has, thereafter, placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of the aforesaid cont