Gajadhar Singh vs State of M.P.

13-12-1991

Applicant by Shri D. S. Sharma, Advocate.

He has filed a copy of the second bail application.

He is heard on the question of admission.

This applicant Gajadhar Singh''s third bail application u/s 438 (1), Cr. P. C.-the first having been withdrawn and the second having been rejected by this Court on merits in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1924/91, decided on 1-11-1991.

A copy of the earlier order is on record. In that case, the applicant''s learned Counsel had made submission on the merits of the evidence as well as on the ground of a counter-case registered against the opposite party on a report lodged by applicant Gajadhar Singh himself.

Today, Shri D S. Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant was asked what are the changed circumstances which would justify the grant of bail to the applicant after the rejection of his earlier bail application. In reply he pointed out paragraph 5 of the third bail application which is to the effect that the opposite side was the aggressor. In the earlier bail order it was pointed out that there was evidences to the effect that the applicant''s farsa blow resulted in a fracture injury to a Hakimsingh. On going through the reports filed by the parties, it was observed as follows:

On going through the two reports, it is clear that the reports of the opposite parties are agreed in one respect, that is, the occurrences took place in or about the house of complainant Layaksingh Even according to the FIR of applicant Gajadhar he and atleast three of his men had gone to the spot. As is usual, neither report makes any reference to the injuries received by the opposite party.

It was also pointed out that the applicant had been absconding for nearly 6 months.

In the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, it was laid down that in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation, there was no justification for admitting an accused to bail after his earlier bail applications had been rejected. It was pointed out that if applications are allowed without a substantial change in the fact-situation that would be virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a chage in the fact-situation.

13-12-1991 Contd.

This being the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this third bail application u/s 4.18 (1), Cr. P. C., filed by the applicant does not deserve to be admitted for final hearing.