Ramroop vs State of MP

Sheel Nagu, J.—Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this 3rd application u/s. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kailras, District Morena in connection with Crime No. 494/2012 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

This third bail application has been filed after rejection of earlier ones out of which the one rejected on 03.05.2013 and in M.Cr.C. No. 1185/2013 was on merit, whereby this Court after finding the applicant to be wielding a lathi and merely surrounding the deceased alongwith other co-accused to prevent the deceased from running away so that fatal blow of gun-shot could inflicted by the other co-accused, rejected the earlier prayer for bail primarily on the ground of gravity of offence which involves triple murder.

The present repeat bail has been filed by the applicant primarily on the ground that certain documents of the prosecution are anti-timed. It is further contended that dying declaration does not implicate the applicant. Referring to the spot map, the applicant counsel contends that the same discloses the eye-witness to be about 100 metres away while witnessing the incident at about 5:30 a.m. on 12.11.2012, when there was insufficient light. It is further contended that the applicant is 69 years old person and only three out of 25 enlisted prosecution witnesses have been examined till date causing prejudice to the applicant who is in custody since 16.11.2012.

It is also contended that the sole eye-witness has been examined and therefore there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses in case of release.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State and Senior counsel Shri V.K. Saxena on behalf of victim contends by citing the decision of this Court in case of Ram Sahodar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and in case of Atar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1997 (Vol. 1) JLJ 123 that unless there are changed or subsequent circumstances or development, the Court is not empowered to take a different view in a repeat bail applicant than the one taken while rejecting the earlier bail application on merits.

It is further contended by the learned Sr. counsel Shri V.K. Saxena for the victim that if grounds available have been taken in the earlier unsuccessful bail applications are permitted to be successfully raised in subsequent bail application, then it would lead to opening of pandora''s box where orders of rejection in the earlier bail application will loose their sanctity and the accused shall take advantage of being released on bail on the ground which may not be tenable in law.

This Court may not go into the prolixity of citations relied upon by both the sides as this Court is of the firm view that grounds which despite being available, if not raised in the earlier unsuccessful bail applications cannot be permitted to be raised successfully in repeat bail applications, unless a case of new circumstance arising subsequent in point of time to the rejection of earlier bail application is made out. This view of this Court is bolstered in case of Atar Singh Vs. State of M.P., and in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another,

In the present case, the applicant has failed to point out any new or subsequent event/development in support of his prayer for repeat bail which may have taken place after rejection of the earlier bail applications.

In view of the above, no case for bail is made out and accordingly, this 3rd bail application deserves to be and is therefore rejected.