- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.
(2.) IN my opinion, filing of this application for grant of anticipatory bail is nothing but sheer misuse of process of the court. Petitioner has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail because he was summoned to be joined as an accused by order of trial court dated 24.11.2010 accepting application of complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Admittedly petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.603/2009 against aforesaid order before this court, in which originally on 08.05.2009 stay order was passed but subsequently that stay order was vacated and it is thereafter that the warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another ? AIR 2003 SC 4662 to argue that even in such matters, the anticipatory bail would been entertainable. It is argued that though originally granted stay order dated 08.05.2009 was vacated but nothing was said about subsequent order by which trial was stayed and therefore there is ambiguity, hence the anticipatory bail application is maintainable. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has already filed revision petition. The petitioner can avail only one remedy. When he already filed the revision petition assailing order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., he can seek appropriate interim order therein or if there is any ambiguity can move an application for clarification. The application for grant of anticipatory bail in the facts like this, could not be maintainable. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the case diary, I find that this application for grant of anticipatory bail would not be maintainable because already petitioner has availed of remedy by filing revision petition against the order dated 07.03.2009 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. If in that case originally the stay order was passed and that was vacated and in pursuant to the interim order the court below has issued warrant of arrest, this bail application cannot be entertained. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary's case, supra, although held that this court or the court of Sessions would have necessary powers vested in them to grant anticipatory bail even when cognizance is taken or charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require to do so. In the facts of this case noticed above, petitioner would clearly be disentitled to avail two parallel remedies together and after vacation of stay order by this court, he can not claim anticipatory bail. Bail application is dismissed. ;