Sanjay Tripathi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Dhagat, J

In case of Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) 2 SCC 684 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao 1988 Supp (2) 605, Apex Court has held that judicial discipline required that such matters must be placed before the same Judge if he is available for orders.

As per High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 Chapter IV, Rule 15, subsequent bail applications under Sections 389(1), 438 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure shall be listed before the same Bench which has decided the first bail application even if earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution or dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn. Said rule has not taken care of the fact that if Judge who heard earlier bail application was not available, in such cases matter can be heard by another Judge.

Chapter IV Rule 14, 15 provide as under:-

Part-heard case - A part-heard case shall be listed before the same Judge(s):

Provided that if the case is not disposed of within 6 months from the date on which it was first heard in part, it shall be deemed to have been released and be listed before the regular bench, unless otherwise directed by the Chief Justice.

Subsequent applications for Bail- All Subsequent bail applications under Sections 389 (1), 438, 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be listed before the same Judge/Bench who/which had decided the first application, even if earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution, or dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn.

Since learned Single Judge (Justice Vishal Mishra) is sitting in Division Bench-I and not available, therefore, this Court proceeds to hear the matters, in which earlier bail application has been decided by Hon'ble Justice Shri Vishal Mishra.

This is repeat (third) bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant, who is in jail since 02.04.2022 in connection with Crime No.142/2022, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rewa (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 506, 323, 328, 376-D, 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. During investigation offences under Sections 376-D read with Sections 109, 212, 366-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/6, 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was enhanced. Earlier applications i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 20278/2022 was dismissed on merits on 02.05.2022 and M.Cr.C. No. 27163/2022 has been dismissed having been rendered as infructuous.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that as per prosecution story, only allegation against the applicant is that he had dropped main accused in the case namely Mahanth Sitaram Das in his car to a hotel. It is submitted that applicant was not knowing about criminal act of said person and on said date, criminal offence was also not registered against him. Though number of criminal cases are registered against the applicant but in this case, applicant is innocent and falsely being implicated. It is submitted that in most of the cases, applicant is acquitted and only in two cases, which are of year 2002 and 2003, he has been convicted. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of bail.

Head the counsel for the parties.

Considering the nature of offence and also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and investigation is complete, bail application filed by the applicant is allowed on condition that he shall mark his presence on first of every month at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rewa (M.P.) till decision in trial. If applicant is found involved in any other offence in future then bail granted to him today shall stand cancelled and he shall be apprehended by the police.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

In addition to aforesaid condition, the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

C.C as per rules