1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No. 8834/2021

(Lalji Yadav Vs. State of M.P.)

Jabalpur, Dated :12.01.2022

HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State.

This is second bail application filed by the applicant

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. First application, M.Cr.C. No.

9187/2020 was dismissed on merits vide order dated

17.06.2020.

The offences were registered in the year 2017 at Crime

No.63/2017 by Police station Chorhata, district Rewa for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366K,

376(2) of the I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

An objection has been raised regarding maintainability

of the successive bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., when the first bail application was rejected on merits.

Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that there

is no bar in entertaining a successive application under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on (2014) 16

SCC 501 Jagmohan Bahl and another Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) and another, (2011) 14 SCC 765 Bhaskar Mishra

Vs. State of M.P. and on a Division Bench decision passed

in a reference in the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and

others Vs. State of M.P. 1996 MPLJ 662 (M.Cr.C. No.

648/1995) to substantiate his arguments.

2

In view of the aforementioned decisions, the objection

regarding maintainability is rejected.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is

that he has not been declared absconder and the other co-

accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail

in M.Cr.C. No.11301/2017 vide order dated 01.08.2017.

In the present case, the incident is dated 10.02.2017.

The applicant has been absconding for more than four years

now and has not cooperated with the investigation despite

rejection of his earlier bail application under Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.06.2020. Further, there is no

change in the fact situation which existed on the date of

rejection of his earlier application. The material which is

available against the present applicant today is the same as

was available on the earlier occasion. Merely, because some

of the other accused were released on bail earlier by a

coordinate bench could not be a ground to entertain this

subsequent application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. when his

first application was dismissed on merits.

In the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. the State of

Tamil Nadu 2021 SCC Online SC 176, the Supreme Court

has observed :-

“As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail

applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when

the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that

the accused (respondent No.2) is absconding and not

cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of

change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive

anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a

speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”

3

Similar view is held in the case of State of M.P. Vs.

Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171.

A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of

Sudip Sen Vs. State of West Bengal in a reference

reported in 2010 SCC Cal 2147 has held :-

“(c) A person will be entitled to move the High Court or

the Court of Session, as the case may be, for the second

time. He can do so only on the ground of substantial

change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to

subsequent events. However, he will not be entitled to

move the second application on the ground that the Court

on earlier occasion failed to consider any particular

aspect or material on record or that any point then

available to him was not agitated before the Court.”

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this

repeat bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the

same is accord