Skip to content


Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantAnil Kumar Upadhyay
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
.....court on 02.05.2013. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that second anticipatory bail application is maintainable on the new ground in view of the judgment of hon'ble supreme court reported in (2005) 2 scc42wherein it has been observed that:- successive bail applications- ground being agitated in instant bail application (without there being any material change in fact or law) if rejected by courts earlier-discovery of- held, all the earlier orders rejecting bail need not be considered in this respect-it would be sufficient if any such findings can be found in any one of the earlier orders. further, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of hon'ble jharkhand high court reported in 2008 (4) east cr c204(jhr) in which para-8 reads as follows:- in the case of.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 2432 of 2016 Anil Kumar Upadhyay …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------- 07/Dated:

19. 09/2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406/408 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.05.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that second anticipatory bail application is maintainable on the new ground in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC42wherein it has been observed that:- Successive bail applications- Ground being agitated in instant bail application (without there being any material change in fact or law) if rejected by Courts earlier-Discovery of- Held, all the earlier orders rejecting bail need not be considered in this respect-it would be sufficient if any such findings can be found in any one of the earlier orders. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court reported in 2008 (4) East Cr C204(Jhr) in which Para-8 reads as follows:- In the case of Parvinder Singh (supra) and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan reported in 2005 Cri LJ944the Supreme Court while dealing with this question has held that a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected, is not precluded from filing subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing, requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the Courts can do so. Relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and Ors. (supra), has held that the principles as laid down in Parwinder Singh's case (supra) applies and a second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even though earlier application was rejected. Same view was taken by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganesh Raj, (supra). The ratio in all these cases is that second application for anticipatory bail even though earlier rejected on merits, is maintainable if there is a change in the fact situation or in law, which requires the earlier view being interfered with. The principles of Res-judicata and such analogous principles is not applicable In criminal proceedings. Facts in the case of Maya Rani Guin, (supra) were in different context in as much as, applicant therein was granted anticipatory bail for a limited period and thereafter, when her prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the lower Court, the applicant filed her application for bail before the High Court under Section 439, CrPC. The matter came up before the Division Bench of the Court and on a difference of opinion between the Judges on the issue as to whether the application under Section 439, CrPC could be filed even when the accused not being in custody and whether an alternative prayer of the applicant therein for anticipatory bail should be considered, the matter was referred to the full bench. It was in this context that the full bench had observed that the grant of anticipatory bail for a fixed duration as a condition, and subsequent prayer for bail having been refused, the further remedy available to the aggrieved accused is for moving the higher forum for regular bail. It was also observed that the second application for anticipatory bail even under subsequent development after rejection or disposal of the earlier application is not maintainable. In the judgment delivered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava (supra) also, the same principle of law was reiterated Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted detailed inquiry report has been submitted by the B.D.O and State has filed counter affidavit on 02.08.2016, wherein he has relied in 153 of the case diary, there is report submitted by the B.D.O, Itkhori on the letter of the I.O stating that the money was deducted from the pay of the petitioner and after verification report was submitted by the B.D.O office, Itkhori and from perusal of that report, it is evident that total Rs. 2,33,500/- was deducted and Rs. 3,40,238/- is due. It is also submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit the due amount i.e. Rs. 3,40,000/- in two installments. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the fact and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and deposit Rs. 3,40,000/- (three lakh fourty thousand) in two installments. The first installment i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- is to be deposited latest by 06.10.2016 and further second installment of Rs. 1,70,000/- is to be deposited latest by 06.12.2016 before the B.D.O, Itkhori and surrender in the court below in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on provisional bail till 14.12.2016 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 845 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid deposit is subject to result of this case. Let a copy of the order be sent to the court below and also handed over the learned A.P.P for transmission to the I.O. List this case on 12.12.2016 so that after assessing the situation as to whether the petitioner has complied the order of this court or not. Thereafter confirmation of provisional bail to the petitioner will be considered. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //