Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) "Whether the second bail application on the grounds, which were available at the time of dismissal of first bail application is maintainable?" is the main point that falls for consideration in this case, in which second bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants named above in Case Crime No. 670 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. of P. S. Govardhan, district Mathura.
(2.) THE First Bail Application No. 30292 of 2008 was rejected on merit by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2008. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution, as appearing from the first information report lodged on 19.9.2008 by the complainant Gurwant Sharma S/o Bharu Lal, resident of village Bhadbhadia, tehsil and district Neemamb (Madhya Pradesh), is that the accused Pappu alias Khursheed (applicant No. 1 herein) and Zakir S/o Shamshuddin defrauded and cheated the complainant on 11.8.2008 and obtained Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac) from him and gave two bricks weighing about two kilograms saying that the bricks are of gold, whereas on examination, the bricks were found of brass or some other metal. I have heard Sri Rajul Bhargava and Sri S. K. Dwivedi, advocates appearing for the applicants and A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) BEFORE coming to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and A.G.A., I would like to express my views on the legal question, which I have posed for consideration as stated herein-above. This question has been posed for consideration, because second or subsequent bail applications are being moved by Hon'ble members of the Bar on the same ground, which were available at the time of rejection of the first bail application. It is generally argued by Hon'ble members of the Bar that there is no legal bar to move second or subsequent bail applications even on those grounds, which were available at the time of disposal of first bail application, if arguments about those grounds were not advanced at the time of disposal of first bail application. The matter of maintainability of second or subsequent bail application on the grounds, which were available at the time of rejection of first bail application, was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Pal v. State of U. P., 1998 (37) ACC 287 : 1998 (2) ACR 1264. The following question was referred by the single Judge to be decided by larger Bench : "Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected.";