SHANTI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: GWALIOR)
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Click here to view full judgement.
G.S.AHLUWALIA, J. -
(1.) This is second application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn, as not pressed by order dated 26/11/2015 passed in MCRC 10886/2015, without extending any further liberty to revive the prayer of anticipatory bail.
(2.) The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2015 registered at Police Station Alampur, District Bhind for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC.
(3.) So far as the submission made by the counsel for the applicant that the liberty of the applicant to file a subsequent application for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be taken away, is concerned, the same cannot be considered by this Court while interpreting the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court. Once the applicant did not raise any objection while withdrawing the first bail application that her further liberty to revive the prayer for anticipatory bail may not be taken away, this Court cannot review the order dated 26/11/2015 passed in MCRC 10886/2015 while deciding the first bail application for grant of anticipatory bail. It appears that co-accused Anand Dubey as well as the present applicant had filed applications under Section 438 of CrPC and both the cases were listed on the same day before the same Bench and the anticipatory bail application of co- accused Anand Dubey was dismissed on the same day by a detailed order on merits. It appears that after the bail application of co-accused Anand Dubey was dismissed on merits, the counsel for the applicant had decided not to press the application of the present applicant on merits and under these circumstances, the coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the counsel for the applicant to withdraw the application without extending any further liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail application. Even otherwise, the counsel for the applicant could not point out any distinguishable feature of the case of the applicant from that of co-accused Anand Dubey. The applicant was working as Sarpanch whereas co- accused Anand Dubey was working as Panchayat Secretary. Both the persons were present in the Gram Sabha which had passed the disputed resolution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.