ORDER

Case diary is available.

2. This repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.

3. The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.981/2017 registered at Police Station Baidhan, District Singrauli for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

4. In the bail application date of arrest of applicant has been shown to be 08.12.2017 thereby giving a false impression that applicant is in jail for the last seven years. Since period of detention plays an important role in bail application, therefore, date of arrest assumes importance.

However, it appears that applicant absconded during the pendency of trial and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. were also initiated. When the applicant had absconded and when he has been re- arrested has not been made clear.

5. Looking to the conduct of the applicant, which had compelled the Court to even initiate proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., the counsel for applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.

6. It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

7. However, the trial Court is directed to clearly mention all the relevant facts while deciding the bail applications.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha decided on 19.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.303/2024 has held as under:

“20. In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:

(1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.

(2) Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made.

This court has already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani's case (Criminal Appeal No.1503/2023 decided on 15.05.2023) that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders.

In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.

(3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.

(4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case.

And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.”

9. The date of absconding, the date of re-arrest have not been mentioned in the order. Furthermore, once the applicant was already granted bail, then how any subsequent bail application can be treated to be the first application has also not been clarified by the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the District and Sessions Judge, Singrauli is directed to inform all the Court about the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka (supra).

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE SR* Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2024.04.18 18:38:31 +05'30'