A second criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC & ST Act, 1989 is not maintainable if an earlier criminal appeal has been rejected by the High Court.

1]

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the

Signed by: MONI RAJU

Signing time: 12/1/2023

6:29:44 PM

Signature Not Verified

2

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.

Signed by: MONI RAJU

Signing time: 12/1/2023

6:29:44 PM

Signature Not Verified

3

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.

Signed by: MONI RAJU

Signing time: 12/1/2023

6:29:44 PM

Signature Not Verified

4

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 Hi