JUDGMENT :

SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ram Autar Verma, Sri Vivek Mishra and Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Sahu, learned panel counsel for the High Legal Service Committee and Sri U.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the records.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant Rajkaran Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2022 (State vs. Rajkaran Patel and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376, 354-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/FTC, Allahabad.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48511 of 2021 (Rajkaran Patel vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsels for the applicant argued that the present second bail application has although been filed on behalf of the applicant without any change in circumstances but there are fresh and new grounds which have been pleaded and are to be argued. It is submitted that a second bail application is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. AIR 1978 SC 527 and also in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dal Chand and Others vs. State of U.P. 2000 Cri. L.J. 4579. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held that a second bail application on a later occasion would be maintainable giving more material, further developments and different considerations. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has while following the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Singh (supra) held the same while answering a question referred to it.

6. It is next argued while placing Para 20(q) of the affidavit in support of the bail application that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The reason for false implication is a matrimonial dispute which has turned into the present dispute out of proportion. Karuna Pati Patel the father of the victim used to bring cases of his area to the applicant for being filed in the High Court. The victim as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she has come to the chamber of the applicant for the first time on 03.01.2020 at Chhota Baghara, Prayagraj so that she may start her legal practice after getting her degree of LL.B. After her admission in the 1st year on 28.12.2020, the victim started to mount pressure on the applicant to marry Shivraj Patel the son of the applicant with herself and keep her with him as his junior after which she would attend the High Court as an Advocate even though she was not holding a degree and was not registered in the Bar Council to which the applicant did not agree and in so far as the proposal for marriage is concerned, the same was discussed by the applicant with his wife and his son after which it was rejected which caused bitterness in the relationship between him and the victim and her father, after which her father asked for return of all the professional files for engaging another counsel which would be managed through the victim to which the applicant refused by stating that he would return them only after the consent of the clients. Her father threatened the applicant of dire consequences including false implication in criminal cases and as such the applicant has been implicated in the present case.

7. It is further argued that in so far as the co-accused Sipahilal Shukla, Advocate is concerned, he has also been falsely implicated in the present case due to the fact that he had tried to persuade the victim and her father not to take such extreme steps in such a petty matter but the persuasion fell