1996 JLJ 642
R.P. Awasthy and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
Imratlal Vishwakarma and others v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 648 of 1995; Decided on 9.2.1996.
Petitioner can, even if the first application filed u/s. 438, CrPC is rejected, file a fresh application u/s. 438, CrPC and obviously, the principle of res judicata would not apply in such a matter. If the application has been filed on the same grounds which had already been considered earlier while rejecting the first bail application, it can be rejected summarily on the ground that the same grounds have been re-agitated in the fresh petition and the petition has not been moved on any new ground. However, it shall have to be considered in each petition on the facts and circumstances of that case that the said aspects had been pressed into service in the previous petition which was rejected and no new ground has been shown to exist for releasing the petitioner on bail under section 438, CrPC. This can be determined only on the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court has to decide as to whether the fresh petition has been filed on the same grounds which were considered and not accepted, or rejected in the previous petition and no new ground has been made out in the second application. In our opinion, to say that the second application filed u/s. 438, CrPC would not be tenable, would be laying down something which is not there in codified and legislated legislation. Misc. Cr. Case No. 4109/92 and 1992 CrLJ 2208 overruled. 1986 CrLJ 279 relied on. [Paras 10 & 11
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 438 -- first application dismissed -- no direction to surrender before competent authority can be given -- second application not barred.
While rejecting the first application there is nothing in law authorising the Court in directing the petitioner to surrender before the competent authority. Conditions can be imposed under sub-section (2) of section 438, CrPC when the Court directs that in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail. But when the first application is rejected, the law does not envisage that any such condition can be imposed that the accused should surrender before competent authority. In view of the said reasoning, it cannot be inferred that after rejection of the first application, the accused is deliberately absconding. Consequently, the second application cannot be said to be untenable on the said score as well. Misc. Cr. Case No. 4109/92 overruled. [Para 13
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.438 -- first application for anticipatory bail -- dismissed on merits -- second application is still maintainable -- not necessary that first application should either be withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed. 1993 JLJ 476 overruled. 1986 CrLJ 279 relied on. [Paras 15 & 16
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 438 -- powers under are of extraordinary character -- are not ordinarily resorted to -- should be exercised with due care and circumspection. AIR 1980 SC 1362 followed. [Para 18
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -Ss. 438 and 397 (3) -- provision under S. 438 -does not contain any prohibition as contained in S. 397 (3) -- no new words can be added in a provision which are not there. AIR 1980 SC 1362 followed. [Para 18
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.438 -- petition for anticipatory bail rejected by Court of Sessions -- further application before High Court is not barred. 1983 JLJ 30 and AIR 1980 HP 36 (FB) relied on. [Para 19
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 & vfxze tekur ds fy, igyk vkosnu fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt & nwljk vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gksxk ;fn vk/kkj ifjofrZr gks x;k gksA
Hkys gh naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 438 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k vkosnu [kkfjt gks x;k gks] na-ç-la dh /kkjk 438 ds v/khu vthZnkj u;k vkosnu Qkby dj ldrk gS vkSj çdVr%] ,sls ekeys esa iwoZ U;k; ykxw ugha gksxkA ;fn vkosnu mUgha vk/kkjkas ij Qkby fd;k x;k gS ftu ij tekur dk çFke vkosnu [kkfjt djrs le; iwoZ esa gh fopkj fd;k tk pqdk Fkk] og la{ksir% bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k tk ldrk gS fd u, vkosnu esa ogh vk/kkj mBk, x, gSa] vkosnu fdlh u, vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k x;k gSA rFkkfi] çR;sd vthZ esa] ml ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ls ;g fopkj fd;k tkuk gksxk fd mDr fLFkfr;k¡ iwfoZd vthZ esa çLrqr dh xbZ Fkh tks [kkfjt dh xbZ Fkh na-ç-la- dh /kkjk 438 ds v/khu vthZnkj dks tekur ij NksM+s tkus ds fy, dksbZ u;k vk/kkj nf‘kZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g çR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ls gh vo/kkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks fofuf‘pr djuk gksrk gS fd D;k u;k vkosnu mUgha vk/kkjksa ij Qkby fd;k x;k gS ftu ij iwfoZd vthZ esa fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj eatwj ugha fd, x, Fks vFkok ukeatwj dj fn, x, Fks rFkk nwljs vkosnu esa dksbZ u;k vk/kkj ugha crk;k x;k gSA gekjh jk; esa] ;g dguk fd na-ç-la- dh /kkjk 438 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k nwljk vkosnu xzká ugha gksxk] dqN ,slk vf/kdfFkr djuk gksxk tks lafgrkc) vkSj fo/kkf;r fo/kku esa ugha gSA çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 4109@92 rFkk 1992 lhvkj ,y ts 2208 myVk x;kA 1986 lhvkj ,y ts 279 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 10 rFkk 11
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 & igyk vkosnu [kkfjt & l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds le{k çLrqr gksus dk vkns‘k ugha fn;k tk ldrk & f}rh; vkosnu oftZr ughaA
Ikgyk vkosnu [kkfjt djrs le; vthZnkj dks l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds le{k çLrqr gksus djus dk funs‘k nsus dks çkf/kÑr djus okyk fof/k esa dqN Hkh ugha gSA U;k;ky; }kjk tc funs‘k nsrk gS fd fxjrkjh dh fLFkfr esa mls tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk,] na-ç-la- dh /kkjk 438 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu ‘krs± vf/kjksfir dh tk ldrh gSA fdarq tc igyk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS] fof/k esa ;g ifjdfYir ugha gS fd ,slh dksbZ ‘krZ vf/kjksfir dh tk ldrh gS fd vfHk;qDr l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds l{ke çLrqr gksA mDr rdZ dh n`f"V ls] ;g vuqfer ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd igys vkosnu dh [kkfjth ds i‘pkr~ vfHk;qDr tkucw> dj Qjkj gSA ifj.kkeLo:i] nwljk vkosnu mDr nwljs dkj.k ls Hkh vxzká gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 4109@92 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 13
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 & vfxze tekur ds fy, igyk vkosnu & xq.kkxq.k ij [kkfjt & nwljk vkosnu fQj Hkh pykus ;ksX; gS & ;g vko‘;d ugha gS fd igyk vkosnu ;k rks çR;kâr fd;k x;k gks vFkok vkxzg ugha ds :Ik esa [kkfjt gqvk gksA 1993 ts ,y ts 476 myVk x;kA 1986 lhvkj ,y ts 279 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15 rFkk 16
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 & ‘kfDr;k¡ vlk/kkj.k çÑfr dh gSa & lkekU;r;k vkJ; ;ksX; ugha gSa ≦d~ lko/kkuh rFkk lrdZrk ls ç;qDr dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1362 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 18
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 rFkk 397 ¼3½ & /kkjk 438 ds v/khu mica/k && /kkjk 397 ¼3½ esa ;Fkklekfo"V dksbZ fu"ks/k lekfo"V ugha gSa & fdlh mica/k esa dksbZ u, ‘‘kCn ugha tksM+s tk ldrs tks mlesa ugha gSaA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1362 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 18
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 & vfxze tekur ds fy, vthZ ls‘ku U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vkSj vkosnu oftZr ugha gSaA 1983 ts ,y ts 30 rFkk , vkb vkj 1980 fg-ç- 36 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 19
R.P. Awasthy, J. -- 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Cases Nos. 5563/95 and 5772/95.
2. Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 648/95, 5563/95 and 5772/95 have been referred to a Larger Bench by an Hon'ble Single Judge for resolving the controversy as to whether second application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after rejection of the first application would or would not be tenable. The controversy has arisen on account of the fact that Hon'ble Single Judge of this High Court (Hon'ble P.N.S. Chouhan, J.), placing his reliance on 1992 Criminal Law Journal 2208 (Malla Ramarao v. State), has held that second bail petition under section 438, Cr.P.C. is not tenable. However, in 1993 JLJ at page 476 (Dharmendra v. State of M.P.), it has been held by Hon'ble Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. that second petition under section 438, Cr.P.C. would be tenable if the earlier petition has been withdrawn and consequently dismissed. In this authority, 1986 Cr.L.J. at page 279 : Ram Sahodar v. State of M.P. has been relied upon for drawing an analogy between sections 438 and 439, Cr.P.C.
3. Following question therefore has been referred to this Bench:
"Whether a second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable and whether it would make any difference if earlier application was dismissed on merits or on account of having been withdrawn or not pressed?"
4. Our answer to the said question is that the second petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable and it would not make any difference if earlier application was dismissed on merits or on account of having been withdrawn or not pressed.
5. The reasons for our answer are as follows :
To hold that the second bail application u/s. 438, Cr.P.C., would not be maintainable if earlier application has been rejected, would be importing something which is not there in the codified and legislated law. There is no statutory prohibition contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure that on an application filed u/s. 438, Cr.P.C., being rejected, the person apprehending his arrest in connection with some non-bailable offence cannot file a fresh application for being released on bail u/s. 438, Cr.P.C.. Therefore, with great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken in M.Cr.C. No. 4109/92: Ram Sewak Sharma v. State (in which reliance has been placed on 1992 Cr.L.J. 2208 : M. Ramarao v. State) that on an application filed u/s. 438, Cr.P.C. being rejected, the petitioner is duty bound in law either to surrender himself before the concerned authority or to file an petition for special leave in the Supreme Court.
6. This matter can be elucidated by giving some examples. "A" is found to be in possession of white powder kept in a packet. The said powder is seized from him on account of suspicion that it may be a narcotic substance like brown sugar. However, he is not arrested. Since seizure has been made from him, "A" moves an application u/s. 438, Cr.P.C.. However, the same is rejected at the first instance saying that the article has been sent to Chemical, Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner is received subsequently, which reveals that the said powder is Soda-by-Carb and is not brown sugar. Nevertheless, the prosecuting agency is bent upon prosecuting him. Whether it can now be said that the second application would be barred or not tenable simply because earlier application was rejected?
7. We may consider yet another example in this context. A rich man has kept on his pay roll a lady of loose moral. For wreaking vengeance he prompts his keep to lodge a report of rape having been committed on her by "B". To give a ring of truth, the said prosecutrix self inflicts some minor injuries and lodges a report. Looking to the nature of offence, first application filed u/s. 438, Cr.P.C. is rejected. On further investigating the matter, it appears from the material collected in the case diary that the accusation might be false. Should the second application
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.