ORDER

Subodh Abhyankar, J. - Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01/04/2023, rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Shajapur, in SC ATR No.47/2023, whereby the prayer for bail has been rejected.

2. Appellant is arrested in connection with crime No.414/2022, registered at Police Station-Susner, Shajapur, (MP), in connection with offence punishable under Sections 307, 325, 294, 506, 34 and 302 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),3(2)(V-a) and 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC& ST Act). The appellant is in custody since 18.12.2022.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, submitting that the second Criminal appeal against the same order passed by the trial court is not maintainable, as the appellant had already preferred the earlier Criminal Appeal No. 5712/2023, which was also filed against the same order dated 01.04.2023 rejecting the bail of the appellant by the trial court.

4. In rebuttal, Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.4668/2017 dated 5.17.2017 in the case of Ramu @ Ramlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in I.L.R. (2018) M.P. 163 wherein, the Court has rejected the contention of the State that the second criminal appeal is not maintainable against the same order of rejection, and it is held that a fresh appeal is maintainable after rejection of the first Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC & ST Act, 1989.

5. Counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of this Court to the subsequent decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Ketan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {Criminal Appeal No.7453/2023 dated 31.8.2023} wherein, this Court has held that before filing a second criminal appeal, the appellant is required to submit a fresh application for bail before the trial court and the second criminal appeal against the earlier order of rejection of bail is not maintainable. Shri Mansoori has also submitted that although in the aforesaid case, the earlier decision rendered in the case of Ramu @ Ramlal (supra) has been referred to, but it has not been discussed and there is no other reference of this order passed in the case of Ramu @ Ramlal (supra).

6. Shri Mansoori has also submitted that although again in a subsequent decision rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court at the Gwalior Bench in the case of Neeraj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {Cri. Appeal No.1502/2023 dated 05.4.2023}, it has been held that the second criminal appeal would not be maintainable but in that case, even the reference of the decision rendered in the case of Ramu @ Ramlal (supra) has not been made.

7. Shri Mansoori has also drawn attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Dushyant Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh {Criminal Appeal No.1797/2022 dated 12.4.2023} in that case also, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a second criminal appeal would not be maintainable against an earlier order of rejection against which, an earlier criminal appeal has also been filed in the High Court.

8. Counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court to the Full Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2003 (1) M.P.L.J. 513, para 9 to submit that if the earlier decision is not discussed and dealt with in the subsequent decision by the other co-ordinate bench of the High Court, it is the earlier decision that would prevail.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It is found that on two occasions, viz., Ketan (supra) and Neeraj (supra), this Co