JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastva, J.
1. This is a second application for bail on behalf of the accused applicant Shodan Singh involved in Case Crime No. 348 of-2004 under Sections 307/302 I.P.C. P.S. Baldev District Mathura. The first bail application was rejected vide order of this Court dated 1.7.2005 on merit.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the impugned order the cross case filed on behalf of the accused persons was discarded on the ground that two applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were moved by the co-accused Tej Singh, Mohan Singh and their Bhabhi were rejected by the Addl, Chief Juducial Magistrate IV, Mathura on the basis of a police report. He has argued that in fact those applications under "Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were in respect of another incident taken place on 30.12.04 whereas the cross case was in respect of an occurrence took place on 29.12.04 for which a complaint case is pending before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Mathura against Man Singh, Jay Veer Singh and Maheshi The learned Magistrate summoned all the accused persons under Sections 307/325/504 I.P.C.
3. It is true that a cross case on a complaint filed by the father of the applicant is pending against Man Singh, Jayveer Singh and Mahesh under Sections 307/325/504 I.P.C. but the said cross case appears concocted because in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed from the side of the accused persons referred above, there was not a word regarding the earlier occurrence dated 29.12.04 specially when a person died in the said occurrence, instead the said occurrence was referred as "any two parties occurrence dated 29.12.04." The factum of cress case was clearly mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order. However the second application for bail cannot be treated as a review of the earlier order.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the fresh ground is an order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2005 Man Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. whereby the summoning order dated 5.5.2005 passed in complaint case No. 126/05 was upheld and the revision filed against the said order was dismissed. In fact this can not be taken as new or fresh ground to give rise another bail application specially when the existence f cross case was already referred in the first bail order and the dismissal of revision against summoning order can not give strength to the said fact which already existed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any new ground for the second bail application. The application is rejected.