Chandu Singh vs State of M.P.

R.C. Mishra, J.—Arguments heard.

After being arrested in connection with Crime No. 578/98 registered at Kotwali, Damoh (M.P.) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 209, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the applicant is injudicial custody. The corresponding trial is pending as ST No. 64/99 in the Court of IV ASJ, Damoh.

This is a repeat application for grant of bail. The earlier one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 25-3-2008 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11557/07. However, as observed in the order dated 16-7-2008, the applicant has been able to secure his release on bail for a period of 30 days by suppressing the factum of rejection of his bail application on merits by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that he is entitled to bail as he has not misused the liberty granted by the Trial Court by way of the order dated 20-5-2008.

The contentions is, apparently, mis-conceived as the temporary release was secured by violating the guidelines laid down by Hon''ble the M.P. High Court in Hari Mohan Dixit v. State of M.P. 1986 (II) WN 58 and reiterated in Suresh Mota Chenwala v. State of M.P. 1986 MPLJ 659, Daini @ Raju v. State of M.P. 1989 JLJ 323, Munnidevi v. Sessions Judge, Gwalior 1993 MPLI 310 and State of M.P. Vs. R.P. Gupta, Advocate, . It is relevant to note that a circular has also been issued by Hon''ble the High Court on its administrative side to enforce compliance with the direction contained in the decision rendered in R.P. Gupta''s case (supra).

Accordingly, it is not possible to entertain any bail application unless the full particulars of person, who has given instructions in writing to move the application, and the fact pertaining to earlier attempts and pendency of bail application, if any, before Hon''ble the High Court are placed on record by way of affidavit. For this, a particular reference may be made to the following observations made by Hon''ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) in Daini @ Raju''s case (supra).

A bail application is expected to incorporate a statement as to all facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in support of his prayer so that whatever is put forth before the Court does not vanish in thin air, but is retained in the record, though there is no format prescribed for all bail applicants; if any statement likely to be controverted by the opposite party, the party would do well to support its statement by an affidavit or documents, as advised.

It is true that, on an earlier occasion, concession of bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 26-10-1999 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6662/99 but he flagrantly violated conditions thereof by remaining absent for a considerable period of time. Further, no material change of the circumstances of the case has occurred after rejection of the previous application.

In such a situation, cognizance of the abuse of the process resulting into a conflicting order by the Trial Court, though granting temporary release on bail, was taken. Accordingly, vide order-dated 16-7-2008, the learned Trial Judge was directed to make an inquiry into the matter, after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, his Counsel and the Public Prosecutor-in-charge of the case and to fix up responsibility for the omission to apprise the Trial Judge of the earlier yet an unsuccessful attempt made by the applicant before this Court for grant of bail.

In pursuance of the order, Shri R.K. Singhai, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has forwarded a report indicating that the misconduct of the applicant in suppressing the material fact as to rejection of his bail application by this Court by engaging new Counsel is clearly established whereas the Public Prosecutor-in-charge has not preferred to submit a reply on the ground that the case diary is not available in his office.

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations as well as the misconduct highlighted above, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application, therefore, stands dismissed.

Copies of this order along with inquiry report be sent to the Secretary, State Bar Council and the Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Department, Govt. of M.P. for initiating an appropriate action against the local Counsel for the applicant and the Public Prosecutor-in-charge of the sessions trial respectively for violation of the long standing convention by not apprising the Trial Judge of this Court''s order dated 25-3-2008 (above) rejecting the applicant''s prayer for grant of bail.