Ravi Sahani vs State of Bihar

Narasimha Reddy, C.J.(Oral)—The petitioner figures as an accused in Turkauliya (Banjariya) P.S. Case No.417 of 2013 for offence, punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. He approached the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari for bail by filing B.P. Case No.2387 of 2013. The trial court dismissed the bail application on 18.12.2013. Thereupon, he filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2108 of 2014 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, dismissed the same on 24.04.2014. However it was observed that the petitioner can renew his request for bail, after he completes one year in custody.

The petitioner filed the present application vide Cr. Misc. No.37786 of 2014 for bail stating that he has completed one year in custody. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, passed an order dated 13.11.2014 referring the case to the Division Bench on the question as to whether it is competent for the petitioner to move the application for bail before this Court directly in the second round without approaching the trial court.

Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This is an ordinary bail application. The petitioner had earlier approached the trial court and thereafter this Court for bail.

It is clearly well settled in law that mere dismissal of the application does not disentitle an accused from filing another application. The whole controversy herein is as to whether it is necessary for the petitioner to move the trial court once again.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us, through the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 2014 AIR SCW 2115 (Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra). Though it is not on the issue directly, certain principles laid down therein are relevant. It was held by the Supreme Court that an accused can surrender directly before the High Court and move an application for bail, depending on the facts of the case.

In the instant case, the petitioner is in jail and he has approached this Court on earlier occasion. While dismissing the application for bail, an observation was made that the petitioner may renew his request after expiry of one year in custody. There is no necessity for the petitioner to approach the trial court by filing an application for bail, once again. Though an accused must approach the trial court first, before he approached the High Court, it is not necessary that same exercise must be undertaken at every stage, in respect of the same matter.

Hence, we hold that the present application is perfectly valid and the same deserves to be considered without requiring the petitioner to move the trial court, once again.

Registry shall list the matter forthwith before the concerned Bench.