JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastva, J.
1. This is an application moved on behalf of appellant Rakesh, second time, with the prayer for bail who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B I.P.C. to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and under Section 201 I.P.C. one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in Session Trial No. 275 of 1994 State v. Khacher Mal and Ors. under Sections 304B/201 I.P.C. P.S. Sadabad district Hathras.
2. The prayer of bail earlier of the appellant Rakesh was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 2.12.2005. The appellant in the alternative has prayed for short term bail for his treatment.
3. I have heard Sri D.K. Dewan learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava for opposite party and learned A.G.A.
4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that several points grounds were argued on behalf of the appellant/applicant for bail but have not been considered nor perusal of record has been done.
5. The golden rule for entertainment of Second Bail Application is that it can only be entertained when some fresh ground or event has come up after the disposal of the first bail application. The hearing of second bail application is not a review of the first order which was passed on merit If the second bail application is entertained on the ground which were already existed it will create no ending process and even, day if a bail application is rejected second bail application will be moved. In this way the precious time of the Court will unnecessarily be wasted. In the instant case admittedly no fresh grounds cropped up after disposal of the first bail application. Even in the second bail application it has not been pointed out as to which points grounds argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant which was not considered.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no allegation of demand of down by the applicant in the F.I.R. and the demand as mentioned in the F.I.R. does not constitute a dowry demand In this connection he has placed reliance on Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2001(43) ACC 912 Supreme Court, Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2005(2) ACC 7 Supreme Court and Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2006 Crl. L.J. 554 Supreme Court. I have gone through the above cases which are of no help to the appellant.
7. Both these grounds were duly considered in the first bail order dated 2.12.05. Moreover in the impugned judgment it has been specifically mentioned that the K.I.R, contains a recital that on 30.5.1093 when the informant met his daughter she informed him that all the accused persons tortured her on the demand of Rs 50.000/- so it cannot be said that there was no recital in the F.I.R. As regards the fact that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited in fixed deposit for marriage of one of the daughter of the deceased is concerned, it is nothing but demand of dowry. It has been elaborately discussed by this Court in the first order rejecting bail to the appellant.
8. Therefore I am of the view that there is no good ground to grant bail to the applicant even in the second bail application which has not been based on any subsequent development.
9. As regards the alternative prayer of short term bail is concerned, a report was called from the Superintendent District Jail Hathras which has been submitted through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras along with the report of the Medical Officer Central jail, Agra which shows "nothing suggestive has been found on examination, which could render to refer him as a case of heart ailment." Therefore the applicant is not entitled for short term bail.
10. In view of reasons given above the application for bail as well as short term bail is hereby rejected.