JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) APPLICANT by Shri R. D. Agrawal, Advocate. State by Shri M. M. Qureshi, Dy. Govt. Advocate. ( 2. ) SHRI Agrawal argued the application at length. In the very beginning I had pointed out that the name of the applicant had come up before me in a bail application. That, however, did not check the flow of the arguments. Later on the Dy. Govt. Advocate told me that earlier bail petition of the same applicant had been dismissed only yesterday. He furnished the Criminal Misc. Case No. 980 of 1986. The record is still in the Court and was sent for and it showed that it was dismissed as not pressed after both the counsel had been heard on merits. That application had been filed on 18-8-1986 by Shri B. R. Sharma, Advocate. It is, therefore, clear that Shri R. D. Agrawal did not mention the fact in his bail petition dated 29-8-1986 that an earlier bail petition on behalf of the applicant was pending in this Court. This omission on his part is a kind of omission which led to an order by this Court in Cr. Misc. C. No. 422 of 1986 (Harimohan Dixit vs. State of M. P.) decided on 3-8-1986 and published in the 1986 mpwn Note 58 (July 29, 1986 issue ). In that case it was observed as follows :- "it goes without saying that an Advocate drafts a bail petition on instructions from the applicant or through some one giving instructions on behalf of the applicant. A counsel who drafts the bail petition ought to take instructions preferably written instructions on the point whether any bail application is pending in the Court of Co-ordinate jurisdiction or not. In case he is unable to get any information on the point he ought to specifically mention that even on inquiry he had not been able to know anything about the matter. If such averments are lacking in the bail petition and then it comes to the notice of the Court that in fact there had been a pending bail petition in the court of the Co-ordinate jurisdiction the counsel will certainly have to answer for the omission in the bail petition. . " ( 3. ) IT appears that this has failed to have desired effect. . " ( 3. ) IT appears that this has failed to have desired effect. I now wish to add the following consequences that a counsel may face, if a similar omission is noticed by this Court. "in case the directions given in Hari Mohan Dixit vs. State of M. P. (MPWN Note 58)are found to have been disregarded by a counsel, this Court may - a thing it would not be relished by it - have to presume that the counsel has committed an act of misconduct and may take up such steps as may be required against that counsel. I hope and trust that Shri Agrawal will follow the directions given in Hari Mohan Dixits case in future. " ( 4. ) SO far the present bail application is concerned I propose to deal with it on the merits as argued by Shri R. D. Agrawal, Advocate. ( 5. ) HERE is a case where in the Jiwajiganj locality in the city of Gwalior at 9 P. M. when everybody moves about and hopes and expects to move about with comparative safety, complainant Radhey Shyam Sharma and one Amitav Shrivastava and one neelesh Agarwal had come towards his house in a Vespa. After the Vespa came to a halt 4 young men including the applicant cornered the complainant. One of them namely Azad caught hold of the collar of the complainant and berated him for having picked up a quarrel with his friend Suresh Teli namely the present applicant. When the complainant tried to wriggle out and to escape, co-accused Raju fired a katta. The shot hit him on the right side of the abdomen and then accused persons fired several other shots. They halted a auto-rickshaw and brandishing their kattas they made its driver to take them away from the spot. There is evidence that after the incident the shops started closing up and there had been a panic amongst the inhabitants of the locality. ( 6. ) IN this state of affairs I fail to find any justification whatsoever for admitting the applicant to bail. The bail application is rejected. Bail application rejected.