Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Being aggrieved of the order dated 22.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg District Bharatpur, granting anticipatory bail to the accused-respondent No. 2, the complainant petitioner has moved this application for quashing the same and cancellation of bail.

2. A case was registered (FIR No. 6/2009) at Police Station Jurhara District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 307 IPC. The case of the complainant was that the accused-respondent had used fire arm, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries and several pallets were found on his body. Thereafter the accused respondent, apprehending his arrest, filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below but without any success. However, on filing of second application for anticipatory bail by the accused-respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg District Bharatpur allowed the same on 22.1.2011. Hence, the present application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the complainant.

3. The primary submission made by the counsel for the complainant-petitioner is that apart from the fact that the accused respondent was not entitled for anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Court below has committed gross illegality in allowing the second application for anticipatory bail filed by him. It has been submitted by the counsel for the complainant petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg District Bharatpur is wholly contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Larger Bench of this High Court in the case of Ganesh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005(2) WLC 327 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1048, wherein it has been held that under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge.

4. Contrary to it, the counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that the learned Court below has rightly granted anticipatory bail to the accused respondent after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of offence alleged against him. He has further submitted that there is no ground whatsoever to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused respondent by the learned Court below on 22.1.2011 as the principles of law for cancelling of bail are not attracted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has placed reliance on the case of (i) Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 1508, (ii) Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Criminal Misc. Cancellation of Bail Application No. 3163/2004 decided on 27.10.2005, (iii) Pandit Dnyanu Khot vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) 17 SCC 745, (iv) Manish Pahadia vs. Smt. Sanju Bai and another, 2009(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1741, (v) Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684.

5. It is an undisputed fact in the present case that an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused-respondent had already been dismissed earlier. The application for anticipatory bail which was decided by the learned Court below, by his impugned order dated 22.1.2011, was a second application for anticipatory bail (30/2011). In such view of the matter, the first and foremost question which arises for consideration of this Court is, whether second anticipatory bail application was maintainable before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur and could the accused respondent be granted anticipatory bail on 22.1.2011 in such an application for anticipatory bail.

6. The issue is squarely covered by the ratio had down by a Larger Bench of the High Court in the case of Ganesh Raj (supra) that so far as filing of second anticipatory bail application before the High Court is concerned, it can be done in a limited area i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document