Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accordingly, the bail application of applicant Raju Raidas is rejected."

The second bail application moved on behalf of the accused- appellant was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 25.4.2018, which on reproduction reads as under:-

" Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that he does not want to press the second application for bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the second bail application is dismissed as not pressed."

Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused-appellant while pressing the third bail application submits that although the first bail application was rejected on merit but the relevant points have not been considered while rejecting the same.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that the accused appellant is in jail since 10.9.2012, so his case may also be considered for granting the third bail application of the accused- appellant/ Raju Raidas.

Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate while opposing the third bail application submits that the points which have been argued by learned counsel for the appellant were also available to him when the first bail application was rejected, so keeping in view of the said fact as well as the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girand Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010(2) ACR 1362 , no case is made out to release the accused appellant on bail.

"8. This above question of law was referred to the Division Bench for the view taken in the case of Gama versus State of U.P., 1978 CRI.L.J. 242 was thus:-

" Even though it may be second or third bail application, but unless it is apparent from a reading of the first bail order that the point urged in the subsequent bail applications was also considered and rejected, it can not be said that the point urged in the second or third bail application would be deemed to have been considered in the first bail application just by implication."

In view of said position of law as stated herein above,the points on which learned counsel for the appellant have argued were available to him when first bail application of accused appellant was rejected on merit by means of order dated 7.11.2017, so in view of the ratio of law as laid down in the authorities discussed herein above ,the present third bail application is not maintainable on the same facts.

Another point which has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant is in jail since 10.9.2012.