IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA ON THE 2^nd OF MAY, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9992 of 2022 Between:-

SHANKAR SINGH S/O BABURAJA , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL GALLA MANDI DABOUR, TEH.LAHAR, DIST.BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S. B. SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KAMLA NAGAR POLICE STATION KAMLA NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. SUNAINA GURJAR @ MANJESH GURJAR W/O VINOD GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O GALI NO. 04, NITIN NAGAR, THATIPUR, GWALIOR, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY SHRI HITENDRA GOLANI, PANEL LAWYER)

(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI AMIT DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This application under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2/Smt. Sunaina Gurjar @ Manjesh Gurjar by the trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2022.

It is submitted that the respondent No.2 preferred an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.680/2021 registered at Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.38852/2021 and the same came up for consideration on 30.09.2021. The application of applicant No.1 co-accused Vinod Gurjar was considered and allowed by this Signature Not Verified Court, whereas the application of applicant No.2/respondent No.2 herein was SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR dismissed as not pressed. It is submitted that after withdrawal of the application from this Court on behalf of respondent No.2, again an application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed before the trial Court and the trial Court vide impugned order dt. 18.01.2022 has allowed the second anticipatory bail application of the respondent No.2, who happens to be mother-in-law observing that the case of the respondent No.2 is similar to that of co-accused Vinod Gurjar who was father-in- law of the deceased and considering the factum of parity with Vinod Gurjar, who was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dt. 30.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.38852/2021. It is argued that once the bail application has already been rejected by the trial Court and application of the respondent No.2/mother-in-law was not pressed before this Court, which came up for consideration alongwith co- accused Vinod Gurjar, then there was no occasion for the trial Court to consider and allow the second application for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in the event when counsel for the respondent No.2 has chosen not to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent No.2. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R.Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamilnadu [SLP (Criminal) No.213/2021] has specifically held that second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It appears that the learned trial Court does not apply its mind and outrightly allowed the second application of respondent No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondent No.2 to the application stating therein that the application for grant of anticipatory bail has been allowed by learned trial Court considering the factum of parity. It is submitted that respondent No.2 is mother-in-law and there are omnibus allegations against her. But the fact remains that there is no justification shown by counsel for the respondent No.2 that why the application was not pressed on 30.09.2021 when the matter of her husband co-accused was considered by this Court. He has placed upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. X vs. State of Telangana, 2018 Cri.L.J 3070 and it is argued that once the application is allowed by the trial Court then the in terms of settled principle of law, the Superior Court sh