Back
2008 (II) OLR — 161
M.M. DAS, J.
Sri Braja Bhai...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa...Opp. Party
BLAPL No.767 of 2008
Decided on 18th April, 2008.
Though an accused had a right to make successive applica¬tions for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases, the Court has also a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application.
It is trite to state that though the provisions of res-judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still a Court is bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline. The previous findings arrived at by a Court on a bail application, by which, the prayer for bail was rejected are to receive serious consideration while entertaining a bail application at a later stage and, in such event, a Court must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the Court while rejecting the bail application previously. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds as the same would lead to a specula¬tion and uncertainty in the administration of justice.
2. CRIMINAL TRIAL - While deciding the cases on facts, the Court should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case - A case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it.
While considering the ratio laid down in one case, the Court will have to bear in mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para - 9)
3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art. 21 - Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee under the Article - The said Article contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law - Under the criminal law, a person who has been accused of commission of offences, which are non-bailable, can be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law - Such detention cannot be construed to be in violation of the guarantee provided under the Article, as such detention is authorized by law.
No doubt, even persons accused of non-bailable offences under certain circumstances can be released on bail, where the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case made out against such person and if the Court records the reasons for allowing such bail that in spite of the existence of the prima facie case, there is a need to release such person on bail, where the facts of the case required it to do so. (Para - 14)
JUDGMENT
M. M. DAS, J. — This application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. During the stage of investigation, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec¬tion 438 Cr.P.C. in BLAPL No.12457 of 2006. This Court, while rejecting the said application for anticipatory bail, granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court below and move for regular bail, if he is so advised. The peti¬tioner approached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court refusing to grant anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court after hearing the case, by order dated 20.3.2007 observed that the High Court, while disposing of the petition has granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and move for regular bail, if he is so advised, in which event, the said Court shall dispose of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the above direction, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Peti¬tion with liberty to move for regular bail. The Supreme Court, therefore, disposed of the Special Leave Petition directing that if such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn. Even, thereafter, the petitioner did not surrender before the Court below for which the prosecution moved for issuance of process against the petitioner under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, challenging the process issued against him under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. While dis¬missing the said application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court, without interfering with the order by which process was issued under the above provisions of the Cr.P.C., disposed of the said application by staying issuance of warrant against the petitioner for some period and directing the petitioner to sur¬render within the said period before the Court below and move for regular bail. It was also observed by this Court that in the event the petitioner does not surrender within the said period, the directions issued under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. will be operative. The petitioner, thereafter, surrendered before the learned S.D.J.M., on 25.6.2007 and moved for bail. The said prayer being rejected, the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who also rejected his prayer for bail and, there¬after, the petitioner moved BLAPL No.7038 of 2007 before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
3. Hearing of the said petition was concluded on 11.10.2007. The PUJA Vacation having intervened, judgment of the said bail application was delivered on 21.11.2007.
4. This Court, while disposing of the said bail application considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State, the materials available in the case diary produced before this Court, as well the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer for bail. Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court dismissed the bail application by the said judgment dated 21.11.2007.
5. In the interregnum, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/408/467/468/420/120-B/34 IPC. However, investigation was kept open on the prayer of the prose¬cution under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner moved for bail, afresh, before the learned S.D.J.M. The same being rejected, he moved the learned Sessions Judge, who having rejected the prayer for bail, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicate
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
