This court dismissed a second bail application by Ravi accused under the NDPS Act, holding that without new grounds or changed circumstances, it amounts to an impermissible review of the earlier order rejecting the first bail plea.
Bail application dismissed; applicant refused enlargement on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13639 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been moved by the applicant Ravi who is involved in Case Crime No. 1157 of 2017, under Section 21/22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police StationVrindavan, District-Mathura.
The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 25.1.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several others cases have been slapped by the police in collusion of Sun City. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. All these grounds have not been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application filed on behalf of applicant.
Learned A.G.A., has opposed the prayer for bail and contended that recovered Alprazolam (contraband) is of commercial quantity.
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673 held that :
".....It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Anr. [2001 (1) SCC 169] and various other judgments."
The submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant have not been considered at the time of disposal of first bail application, is no ground to consider the second bail application. The first bail application has been dismissed as per provision of Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act, 1985. There is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, application stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second bail application is maintainable when no fresh grounds or changed circumstances are presented.
Whether grounds not considered in the first bail application justify allowing a subsequent bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh v. KajadReferred¶8
(2001) 7 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Anr.Referred¶9
[2001 (1) SCC 169] · Who else cites this
Ravi
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Parties & counsel
