1. Rule.
2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Applicant / Original Accused for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds stated in the Application inter alia the delay in the trial.
3. The present Criminal Misc. Application is a successive bail application after the Criminal Misc. Application No. 10336 of 2009 was withdrawn as per the order dated 30.9.2009 as well as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11909 of 2010 which was also withdrawn as per order dated 8.10.2010.
4. Heard learned Advocate Mr.B.C.Dave for the Applicant, learned APP Ms. Archana Raval for the Respondent – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the Original Complainant.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave has tried to submit that the Applicant has been arrested in the year 2008, and since then, he has been in jail and the trial has not progressed as it should have, and only five witnesses have been examined till date. He submitted that, in all, there are about 87 witnesses, which may take time, and therefore, pending the trial, the Applicant may be released on bail subject to any reasonable condition.
6. In support of his submission, learned Advocate Mr. Dave has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Babba Alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Byrraju Ramaa Raju v. State through the Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 505. He pointedly referred to the observations made in the judgment in case of Byrraju Ramaa Raju v. State through the Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) to emphasize the observations that the trial has to be expedited, and if, there is likelihood of delay, bail may be granted. He submitted that in the judgment in case of Babba Alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was an accused under TADA case who was ordered to be released.
7. Learned APP Mr. Archana Raval has however submitted that the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed, is required to be considered while deciding the aspect of bail. She has submitted that when the regular bail has not been granted, the delay in trial by itself not be a only consideration. Learned APP Ms. Raval has submitted that infact the trial has commenced, and admittedly, there was initial delay as the present Applicant / Accused and the other three co-accused have been absconding. She submitted that now the trial has commenced qua the present Accused, and therefore, it would be concluded, or any direction may be given. She submitted that if the Applicant is released on bail, then his presence may not be secured, and therefore, considering the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the present Applicant Accused has been involved in other offences not only in Gujarat but also in Bombay (Maharashtra), the present Application may not be entertained.
8. Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the Original Complainant has submitted that the delay may be considered with reference to the facts of the case. She referred to the affidavit placed on record on behalf of the complainant giving the details. Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti Shah has also submitted that the other two offences were registered at Mumbai Kashi Meera Police Station for the offence under Sections 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, at Mumbai Meera Road Police Station the FIR has also been registered for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, which have been stated in the Affidavit. She has also submitted that now when the trial has started, it may be concluded. She has also submitted that the Applicant is not having the roots in the society in Gujarat and if he is released it may lead to a situation where his presence may not be secured and the other three co-accused are also absconding, and therefore, the present Criminal Misc. Application may not be entertained.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant / Accused has been acquitted in one of the case against him in Bombay, and in another case, he has completed the sentence and infact no case is pending.
10. In view of this rival submission, it is required to be considered whether the present Criminal Misc. Application can be entertained or not, which is a successive bail application.
11. Therefore, to decide the present Criminal Misc. Application as successive bail application, the Court is required to consider about the material changes in the fact situation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that change has to be substantial change in the fact situation and not merely a cosmetic change as observed in a judgment in case of State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2292:
“Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.”
12. The aspect of delay therefore is required to be considered, which has been pressed into service by learned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave for the Applicant that he is praying for bail on the ground of delay in the trial. However, at the same time, the moot question, which is required to be considered is the nature and gravity of the offence, on the basis of which, the bail has not been granted, and the delay which is claimed, would justify the grant of bail in such successive bail application. It is required to be mentioned that though there may be delay, but at the same time, the trial has commenced and there was delay initially as there was other co-accused who were also from outside the State and therefore it may have consumed time.
However, when the trial has commenced and the Applicant who is facing the trial is released, it may not be possible to secure his presence for the purpose of trial, particularly when, there are antecedents as stated herein above.
13. It is required to be mentioned that it is not merely a case of some social and matrimonial offence but the offences are under the IPC and the Applicant has been convicted for the offence at Bombay alsom and thereforem taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant aspects, the present Criminal Misc. Application cannot be entertained.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 921 has also considered the aspect of successive bail application and observed:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the Courts can do so.
19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a co-ordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same it would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.”
Therefore, while considering such Application, these observations are also required to be considered and the present Criminal Misc. Application cannot be entertained.
15. At the same time, the interest of justice would be served if the trial is ordered to be expedited with a direction that the Sessions Court, Surat may make an endeavour to expedite the trial of the Sessions Case No. 187 of 2007 and 74 of 2008 preferably completing the same within a period of six months.
16. With the aforesaid observations, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed.
Rule discharged.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*