IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, with specific reasons provided, especially when prior applications have been denied.

ORDER :

BY THE COURT

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Bail cancellation application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Meera, who happens to be the complainant/wife of the deceased in the case pertaining to the FIR No.106/2022 registered at the Police Station Khamnor, District Rajsamand for offences under Sections 394, 302, and 120-B of the IPC. She is aggrieved of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Misc. Case No.241/2022 whereby respondent No. 2 Raju Singh S/O Bhur Singh Dulawat was granted bail by exercising judicial power incautiously and with sheer misuse of the discretion vested with the learned Sessions Judge concerned.

2. Bereft of the elaborate details, the brief facts of the case would be that an FIR No.106/2022 was lodged on 15.05.2022 at the Police Station Khamnor, District Rajsamand alleging inter alia that Bhur Singh, who was the father of the first informant Raju Singh and the husband of the petitioner, was found dead on a woven bed in his house. It was further alleged that some ornaments belonging to the deceased were also found missing and the suspicion was cast to the effect that someone might have killed his father (deceased Bhur Singh) while committing robbery.

3. In view of the allegation mentioned above, the present FIR bearing No.106/2022 has been registered at Khamnor Police Station, District Rajsamand, and during the investigation, the accused persons namely Ramniwas and Ranjeet along with respondent no.2 were arrested by the investigating agency, charge sheet thereof has been filed against the accused before the court, resulting thereof, accused respondent is facing the trial in Sessions Case No. 17/2022 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara. Where in this case, the respondent Raju Singh was granted bail vide order dated 23.12.2022 on the ground of bail granted to the co-accused persons Ramniwas and Ranjeet by order dated 22.12.2022 and the fact of dismissal of earlier bail applications were not taken into account.

4. Heard the counsels representing parties and gone through the averments made by them. The startling fact of the case regarding the manner of disposal of the two bail applications shook the consciousness of the Court, one of the accused Ramniwas and Ranjeet were granted bail on 22.12.2022, and the accused respondent Raju Singh was bailed out vide order dated 23.12.2022 relying on the bail order of co-accused persons.

5. By going through the material made available, this Court observed that the first bail application of accused Raju Singh was filed on 06.07.2022 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2022. The second bail application was filed on 13.07.2022 but it also got dismissed on the very same day, which resulted in another bail application getting lodged on 24.08.2022 which again got dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.08.2022 by the learned trial court passing a detailed order. Surprisingly, the bail application No.241/2022 was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 without assigning to any cogent and plausible reason which is against the propriety and Judicial Discipline. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1866 while explaining the duties of the court to give specific reasons while dealing with subsequent bail applications has held as under :

“12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.(See Ram Govind Upadhyay, supra).

13. Bearing in mind the above principle