Back
1997 (1) JLJ 123
Tej Shankar, J.
Atar Singh v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 2729 of 1996; Decided on 31.10.1996.
Personal liberty is deprived where bail is refused, is too precious value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. AIR 1978 SC 527 followed. [Para 8
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- refusal of bail on one occasion -- does not deprive the accused to apply for bail subsequently giving more details, further developments and different considerations. AIR 1978 SC 527 followed. [Para 8
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- subsequent application -- is not prohibited -- circumstances may change -- person not found entitled to bail previously may become so entitled under changed circumstances. 1986 CrLJ 279 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- subsequent bail application on same grounds -- cannot be considered -- grounds available at the time of first bail application not argued -- on such grounds also no subsequent application lies. AIR 1996 SC 2176, 1986 CCrJ (M.P.) 66, II (1955) CCR 795, 1993 JLJ 476 distinguished. [Paras 10 & 11
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- bail on ground of delay in trial -- fact that delay is not the result of inaction or deliberation of the accused has to be established. AIR 1992 SC 1701 followed. [Para 16
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 21 && nSfgd Lora=rk && tekur ukeatwj fd, tkus ij oapu gks tkrk gSA nSfgd Lora=rk dk tekur ukeatwj fd, tkus ij oapu gks tkrk gS] vuqPNsn 21 ds v/khu ekU;rkizkIr vius lkafo/kkfud ra= dh ,slh vewY; ekU;rk gS ftls O;FkZ djus dh fu.kkZ;d ‘kfDr vfu;r ugha vfirq U;kf;dr% iz;qDr gksus okyk egroiw.kZ nkf;Ro gS] ftlds lkFk O;fDr rFkk leqnk; dh dher dh lfØ; fpark j[kuk gksrh gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 527 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && ,d volj ij tekur dh ukeatwjh && rRi‘pkr~ vf/kd C;kSjk] vfrfjDr mn~?kVuk,¡ rFkk fofHkUu ckrsa fuosfnr djrs gq, vfHk;qDr tekur ds fy, vkosnu djus ls oafpr ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 527 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && i‘pkr~orhZ vkosnu && izfrf"k) ugha gS && ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ifjofrZr gks ldrh gSa && iwoZ esa tekur dk gdnkj ugha ik;k x;k O;fDr ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk gdnkj cu ldrk gSA 1986 lhvkj ,y ts 279 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && mUgha vk/kkjksa ij i‘pkr~orhZ tekur dk vkosnu && fopkj esa ugha fy;k tk ldrk && tekur ds izFke vkosnu ds le; miyc/k vk/kkjksa ij cgl ugha dh xbZ && ,sls vk/kkjksa ij Hkh i‘pkr~orhZ vkosnu xzká ughaA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2176] 1986 lh lhvkj ts ¼e-iz-½ 66] 2 ¼1995½ lh lh vkj 795] 1993 ts ,y ts 476 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 11 ¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && fopkj.k esa foyac ds vk/kkj ij tekur && foyac vfHk;qDr dh vdeZ.;rk vFkok mlds }kjk tku&cw> dj fd, x, gksus dk ifj.kke ugha gS ;g rF; LFkkfir fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1701 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 16
1. This is third application for bail on behalf of accused-applicant Atarsingh.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been involved in a case along with two other co-accused persons, who are his brothers in Crime No. 160/95 under section 307/34 I.P.C. The case was later on converted to section 302/34 I.P.C., when the injured Rajendra died. The applicant was arrested on 24.12.1995.
3. The allegations made against the applicant are that he surrounded the deceased and caught hold of him. There was a civil litigation going on between the applicant's brother Achhelal on the one hand and the deceased Rajendra on the other with respect to a Mend of a field. On the date of occurrence, the deceased, along with his companions, went to the applicant's field, where applicant's brother Achhelal did marpit. He did not commit any marpit and has been falsely implicated, Achhelal along with Gulab had gone to lodge the report at Police Station Dinara, but the police did not write the report and arrested the three brothers. No medical was got done on 24.12.95. Lateron a complaint was made to the S.D.O. (P) Karera by the applicant's brother-in-law Raghuvir Singh on 28.12.95. Thereafter, they were medically examined and produced before the Magistrate. At the time of filing charge-sheet, medical report was not submitted and an application was moved by the counsel for the applicant on 15.4.1996 for obtaining copies of the medical certificates and the report lodged, which have been filed along with the petition. Two applications were moved earlier, which were rejected.
4. Lengthy argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the fact that subsequent applications for bail can be moved even if earlier applications for bail were rejected. He urged that accused has got a valuable right of liberty mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on certain authorities, which are being dealt with hereinafter. He argued that there is no allegation that the applicant caused any injury. He is entitled to bail.
5. Besides it, the next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he had also injured on his person, which have not been explained by the prosecution. Lastly, it has been contended that the accused/applicant has been in custody since 24.12.95 and there has been no progress in the case.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the charge-sheet in the present case was submitted on 6.2.96. First bail application was rejected on 17.4.96 and second bail application on 3.7.96. He pointed out that all the materials now pointed out were available at the time of disposal of the earlier bail applications. No doubt, subsequent bail applications can be moved, but there must be new ground and as no new ground has been shown, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Admittedly, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and while disposing of the second bail application, it was argued that another co-accused had been enlarged on bail, but after taking into consideration that aspect as well, second bail application was rejected on 3.7.96.
8. Now, the main question is as to whether the subsequent bail application is maintainable on the same grounds or on the facts which were available to the applicant at the time when the first or subsequent bail applications were rejected, after hearing the parties. True that subsequent bail applications can be made for bail and the accused has got a valuable right of liberty. Liberty cannot be denied. The earliest authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1978 SC 527) and the learned counsel placed much reliance on this authority. In this case, the Apex Court ruled that ''order refusing bail does not bar fresh application on later occasion giving more details, further developments an
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
