ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid five Misc. Criminal Cases. The applicant Yusufkhan alias Yusuf Pathan has filed the second application for grant of bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under sections 342, 354, 363, 366, 306 and 506, Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 527/2003 registered at Police Station Neemuch. Along with Yusufkhan in this case, there are four other accused named Mohsin Khan, Ghanshyam, Vijay (all majors) and Rahul (Minor). The first application of Yusuf Khan and Rahul has been dismissed by this Court on merits by common order dated 28-4-2003 vide M. Cr.C. No. 4291/2003 and 4330/2003. At that time, though the prosecutrix Uma Chaudhary, a minor girl had already committed suicide and the police had also registered the offence u/s 306, Indian Penal Code against all the five accused persons, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. Even then the application of Yusuf Khan and Rahul were dismissed. The order dismissing the application of both these applicants reads as under:- (M. Cr. C. No. 4291/03 and 4330/03) 28-11-2003; Applicant by Mr. Z.A. Khan Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Anita Sharma, LC NA/State by Mr. Iqubal Anwar, learned PP. Heard with the aid of case-diary ORDER (Oral) This order also governs disposal of M. Cr. C. No. 4330/03. Both the aforesaid applications have mainly pressed on the ground that the applicants are below 17 years of age and facing prosecution before the Juvenile Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of bail in Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and prayed for bail. In the present case, applicants along with the other accused persons (three in number) who are major took prosecutrix Uma Choudhary a minor girl, on false pretext to get her meeting with her friend named Shahina, in the room situated in the garden. Thereafter, applicants started to molest her modesty, upon which the prosecutrix somehow, after putting lot of resistance, escaped from the clutches of the applicants but again she was caught by the applicants and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, applicants started to molest her modesty, upon which the prosecutrix somehow, after putting lot of resistance, escaped from the clutches of the applicants but again she was caught by the applicants and other co-accused persons. One of the accused persons, was having knife in his hand, the applicants and other co-accused persons could not get success to fulfil their ugly desire, since on the cries raised by the prosecutrix, persons of the locality reached over there and saved modesty of the prosecutrix. Looking to the facts and features of the case, and the fact that if the applicants are released on bail, there would be every possibility of their coming in association with other co-accused persons, therefore, it would not be just and proper to release the applicants on bail. It would be safer for them to keep them in an observation home, for their care and protection. The impugned order is disclosing the fact that the applicants are kept in Juvenile Children Observation Home. In the result, both the applications are hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be placed in M. Cr.C. No. 4330/03. After dismissal of the applications of Yusuf Khan and Rahul, the applicant Yusuf Khan filed the instant (second) application before this Court on the ground that the similarly situated co-accused persons (major accused persons Mohsin, Ghanshyam and Vijay) have been granted bail by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch vide order dated 19-2-2003 and 5-3-2004, and minor accused Rahul whose application was dismissed by this Court as mentioned hereinabove was also granted bail by the Juvenile Court of Ratlam by order dated 1-3-2004. Prior to this second application (for grant of temporary bail) was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13-2-2004 vide M.Cr.C. No. 315/2004 (By Hon. Shri Justice A.K. Awasthy) which order reads as under:- M. Cr.C. No. 315/2004 13-2-2004; Applicant by Shrimati Anita Sharma, learned counsel. State by Shri A. Kakani, learned counsel. Arguments heard on the bail application filed for the interim bail u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 527/2003 PS Neemuch for offence punishable u/s 306, 342, 354, 363, 366 and 506/34, Indian Penal Code. State by Shri A. Kakani, learned counsel. Arguments heard on the bail application filed for the interim bail u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 527/2003 PS Neemuch for offence punishable u/s 306, 342, 354, 363, 366 and 506/34, Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 5-10-2003 at about 2 PM the applicant along with the other 4 co-accused abducted and made an attempt to molest the prosecutrix who is minor and she has committed suicide on account of the misdeeds of the applicant and the co-accused. From the dying declaration of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the applicant is involved in the serious crime of abduction and the other offence punishable u/s 306, 342, 354, 363, 366 and 506/34, Indian Penal Code. The applicant has prayed for bail on the ground that he has to appear in the examination of 12th class. The bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on 20-11-2003 in M. Cr.C. No. 4291/03 and 4330/03. Looking to the gravity of the offence there are chances of abuse of temporary bail. However, the learned Trial Court may consider of sending the applicant for the examination in the Police Custody from the Jail. The application is, hereby dismissed. Thereafter the applicant Rahul again applied before the Juvenile Court for grant of bail and the Juvenile Court has granted him bail by order dated 1-3-2004. At the time of consideration of the bail application of Yusufkhan, this Court found that the Court below was not fully and properly apprised of the rejection of the bail application of the applicants Yusuf Khan and Rahul by the prosecution as also by the applicant-accused persons and, therefore, at the first instance Mohsin was granted bail which was his third application before the Court by order dated 19-2-2004. Thereafter, Rahul was granted bail by order dated 1-3-2004 by the Juvenile Court. It was his third application he was granted bail on the ground that the major accused Mohsin was granted bail and the case of Rahul stands on the same footing. Thereafter, Ghanshyam, Vijay were also granted bail by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch vide order dated 5-3-2004 on the ground that Mohsin was granted bail. Therefore, this Court suo motu issued show-cause notice for cancellation of bail granted by the Court below to Mohsin, Ghanshyam, Vijay and Rahul. Thereafter, Ghanshyam, Vijay were also granted bail by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch vide order dated 5-3-2004 on the ground that Mohsin was granted bail. Therefore, this Court suo motu issued show-cause notice for cancellation of bail granted by the Court below to Mohsin, Ghanshyam, Vijay and Rahul. All these four accused persons are duly represented by their advocates and also filed replies to show-cause notice. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused Rahul is that he has not suppressed the fact of dismissal of his bail application by the High Court before the Juvenile Court and the Juvenile Court granted him bail on release of Mohsin on bail by the III Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Neemuch. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed the certified copy of the bail application filed before the Juvenile Court dated 27-2-2004. This Court has perused the application. In this application, though the fact of dismissed of bail application by the High Court is mentioned, but it is not mentioned that the application was dismissed on merits. On the contrary in para 3, incorrect ground regarding dismissal of application of the applicant Rahul by the High Court is mentioned. Bail application was dismissed by the High Court because the investigation was incomplete and other accused persons were not arrested. The application is nowhere disclosing the fact of filing of the copy of the bail rejection order. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to granting bail to Rahul by order dated 1-3-2004, his bail application was dismissed on merits not only once, but twice and both the orders were on merits. His applications were dismissed on the ground of gravity of offences, but this fact has been suppressed by the applicant before the Juvenile Court, Ratlam and the Juvenile Court, Ratlam also did not care to direct the applicant to file the copies of the two bail orders dismissing the applications of Rahul on 28-11-2003 and thereafter on 13-2-2004. Both the aforesaid orders have already been reproduced hereinabove. Both the aforesaid orders have already been reproduced hereinabove. The learned Juvenile Court has also mentioned one incorrect fact while granting bail to Rahul vide order dated 1-3-2004 that the major accused persons Mohsin, Ghanshyam and Vijay Kumar were granted bail whereas Ghanshyam, and Vijay were not granted bail, prior to granting of bail to Rahul by order dated 1-3-2004, Ghanshyam and Vijay Kumar were granted bail by order dated 5-3-2004 i.e. after granting bail to Rahul by the Juvenile Court. While granting bail to Mohsin Khan by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, the fact of dismissal of bail application of Yusuf and Rahul was not considered and it was the duty of the prosecution to point out and place their dismissal orders before the Court. Same is the situation for granting bail to Ghanshyam and Vijay. For proper administration of justice, the learned Court below should have asked the applicants to make specific averment about filing and dismissal of their bail applications by the Superior Court or any Court having similar jurisdiction. The bail application of Mohsin was the third application before the Second Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Neemuch and prior to that his application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Neemuch by order dated 10-11-2003. Therefore, his further application must have been heard by the same Court as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another, . Recently, the Supreme Court has considered the provisions of bail as well as cancellation of bail in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, 2004 AIR SCW1581. In this case, earlier seven applications made by the accused Rajesh Rajan alias Pappu Yadav were dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, his application was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Thereafter, he filed 8th application before the High Court and the High Court has allowed the same on the ground that the accused has been in custody for a period of three and a half years and that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. Thereafter, he filed 8th application before the High Court and the High Court has allowed the same on the ground that the accused has been in custody for a period of three and a half years and that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. Against this grant, the complainant Kalyan Chandra Sarkar approached before the Apex Court and on detailed evaluation of legal and factual position, the Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted by the High Court and held that:- Though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the impugned order no such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into consideration that atleast on four occasions order refusing bail has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and subsequently when the High Court did grant bail, the Supreme Court cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order. The impugned order indicate any of the fact that the High Court took note of the grounds which persuaded the Supreme Court to cancel the bail on earlier occasions. Such approach of the High Court would be violative of the principle of binding nature of judgments of Superior Court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and in effect tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective the principles enunciated therein which have a binding character. In the case in hand, on merits the bail application of Yusuf and Rahul was dismissed by this Court in M. Cr.C. No. 4291/03 and 4330/03 on 28-4-2003. Again the bail application of Rahul was dismissed by another Bench (Before Hon'ble Shri Justice Awasthy) by order dated 13-2-2003 in M. Cr.C. No. 315/2004, the Courts below ignoring all these orders, granted bail to the accused persons Mohsin Khan, Ghanshyam, Vijay (by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch and Rahul (by Juvenile Court, Ratlam). This action is contrary to the norms of judicial propriety and violative of principle of binding nature of judgments of Superior Courts. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch and Rahul (by Juvenile Court, Ratlam). This action is contrary to the norms of judicial propriety and violative of principle of binding nature of judgments of Superior Courts. Not only this, the applicant Rahul has suppressed material facts and pleaded incorrect facts in the application in paras 3 and 6 filed before the Juvenile Court dated 27-2-2004 as discussed above. Here is the case in which because of the act of the accused-persons, who first kidnapped/abducted the minor girl (Uma Chaudhary) on false pretext and took her inside the room situated behind the jail. There, they all tried their level best to molest her modesty at the point of knife. Somehow or the other, she escaped from the clutches of the accused persons. On the next day, she committed suicide by ablazing herself after pouring kerosene oil. She left a death note in which she narrated the details of the incident naming all the accused persons for the incident. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this third application of Yusuf Khan is also dismissed and the bail granted to Mohsin Khan vide order dated 19-2-2004 and to Ghanshyam and Vijay by order dated 5-3-2004 by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Neemuch and the accused Rahul by order dated 1-3-2004 by the learned Juvenile Court, Ratlam are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the respective Courts where they are facing prosecution, on 23-4-2004 under intimation to this Court. It is, however, made clear that accused Yusuf Khan and Rahul be kept in Juvenile Children Observation Home. Final Result : Dismissed