Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: successive bail application in Maganbhai vs State on 3 May, 2012Matching Fragments
1. Rule returnable today. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.L.R.Pujari wavies service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Learned advocates Shri .Satyam Chhaya and Shri P.B.Khandheria waives service of notice on behalf of respective respondents .
2. Petitioner
-Applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 2637 of 2011 is the original complainant who has challenged the order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge , Gondal, Camp at Jetpur dated 15.1.2011, granting bail in successive bail application to the respondents in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12 of 2011 in connection with complaint registered with Jetpur City Police Station being I-CR. No.89 of 2010 for the offences punishable u/s. 302, 307,323, 324, 427, 120B, 34, ,143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Gondalia for the complainant has fervently also submitted that this is nothing but an attempt to over-reach the court process and misuse of process of law. This must be dealt with very sternly . He also urged that this successive bail application was preferred on 11th January, 2011, knowing fully well that the Presiding Officer who rejected earlier bail application was to be on leave as his leave report had been sanctioned on a prior date. Yet, respondents chose to get the matter posted on 15th January, 2010 and the Presiding Officer who was In-charge granted the bail, when the officer regularly having charge of such matters had disallowed their applications for bail by a well reasoned order. He further urged that all the accused also have criminal antecedents and it ought to have been considered by the Court that grant was in successive bail application with there being no ground worth the name. He urged that hearing of this application of cancellation could not be taken up for no fault of the complainant . Learned advocate Mr.Gondaliya relied upon the ratio laid down in the judgement of Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna Alias Munna Jaiswal and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 678
29. Learned Presiding Officer Mr.A.K.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, 5th FTC , Gondal,. Camp at Jetpur was on leave possibly on account of 'Uttarayn' holidays and successive bail application has been decided by Mr.M.A.Naik, Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, Campt at Jetpur .
30. Following are the reasons assigned by the learned Judge while allowing this successive bail. (1) Matter is sessions committed and numberd as Sessions case No. 72/10, however, no charges have been framed so far. (2) Essential object of grant of bail is to ensure the availability of accused at the time of trial as per direction of Supreme Court as well as this Court .(3) Accused's social status , possibility of abscondance, possibility of tampering with the witnesses, nature of offences alleged and its gravity incarceration for a longer duration are all necessary requirements to be considered . The Court also noted that the filing of charge-sheet and long period of custody as under trials are the changed circumstances.
32. It is utterly surprising that the Presiding Officer having known that one such application for bail had already been rejected after filing of the chargesheet, chose to name the filing of the chargesheet a changed circumstances for him to grant such successive bail application. It is further intriguing that the six months period of imprisonment as an under-trial prisoner is regarded to be a very long period, while justifying his order of grant of bail. Knowing fully well that the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and having been numbered as Sessions case, without being mindful of the fact that such observations were being made in the double murder case, the Court granted bail to these two accused and respondent no. 4 disregarding settled norms as also their criminal antecedents as well as impact on the society of such an order.