Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Bhan Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 September, 2015
1
Sumit Sahu Vs. State of M.P.
M.Cr.C. No.8920/2015
08.09.2015
Shri D. S. Raghuvanshi Advocate for applicant.
Shri B.K. Sharma Govt. Advocate for Respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.1064/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 307/34 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.
The applicant is in custody since 25.7.2015. This repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier one which was dismissed on merits on 12.8.2015 in shape of M.Cr.C. No. 8242/2015. The new ground raised herein is filing of supplementary charge-sheet on 20.8.0215.
Perusal of the rejection of the last bail application on 12.8.2015 indicates that bail application of the petitioner was rejected after being considered on merits and not on the basis of the investigation being incomplete and therefore filing of supplementary chargesheet cannot give a new ground to the applicant.
2Sumit Sahu Vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No.8920/2015 Allowing of this repeat bail application will amount to review of the order passed on 12.8.2015 which will not be in consonance of the scheme of Cr.P.C. which does not recognize the concept of review.
The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754 may be profitably referred to.
The petitioner is at liberty to repeat his prayer for bail in case trial gets further delayed for reasons not attributable to the applicant.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge ar