Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Raghunath Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This IInd bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that the Lordship may graciously please accept and allow this bail application and issue a direction to the Station House Officer Police Station, Shivdaspura/ Investigation Officer that in the event of arrest, in FIR No. 75/2013 Police Station, Shivdaspura (Jaipur Rural offences u/Sec.420, 120B IPC, 1860, petitioners shall be released on bail and other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the interest of justice may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Ist bail application filed by the petitioners u/S. 438 CrPC was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.7.2013 with liberty to surrender before the court below and this is second bail application u/S. 438 CrPC, but still he wants that this IInd bail application should be allowed on the grounds mentioned in the bail application. 3. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that on 16.7.2013 the same Advocate Mr. Hari Narain Gupta had requested to this Court on 16.7.2013 that he wanted to withdraw the Ist bail application moved by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial court and if thereafter they move the bail application before Court concerned, then the same should be decided in accordance with law, but instead of this, they misled this Court and moved the instant second bail application under Section 438 CrPC, which is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ganesh Raj vs. State, reported in 2005(1) ILR (Raj.) 629 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 831 as well as the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr.Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 8385/2015 (Chand Prakash and Anr. vs. State). Learned PP has further requested to this court that heavy cost should be imposed against the petitioners, so that such type of practice should not be adopted by the learned Advocate in future, particularly when he himself had requested to this Court on 16.7.2013 for withdrawal of the Ist bail application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material record. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judgment of Full Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Ganesh Raj vs. State, reported in 2005(1) ILR (Raj.) 629 as well as the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 8385/2015 (Chand Prakash and Anr. vs. State), as well as the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners on 16.7.2013 for withdrawal of the Ist bail application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. with liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned, but instead of surrendering before the Court concerned, they have moved this IInd bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, this IInd bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.