This order dismisses a second bail application filed directly before the High Court, contrary to the first order which restricted filing fresh applications without approaching the trial court first, citing the petitioner's non-cooperation in filing the initial writ.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 324/2023
Vijendra Kumar S/o Shrinemi Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bhojpurakhurd, Ps Jobner, Dist. Jaipur (Raj) ( Presently At Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
17/03/2023
Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last about four weeks, though they have no grievance against the Court administration.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2SCC 45 observed that non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one, rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law.
This second bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No.240/2022 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West) for the offence under Section 323, 354, 376 (2)(n) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act.
[CRLMB-324/2023]
(2 of 2)
First bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dt. 26.8.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12864/2022. By the said order, no liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application directly before this court.
Instead of filing a fresh bail application before the trial court, the petitioner has directly filed this second bail application before this court, whereas the petitioner should have first approached the trial court.
The second bail application filed by the petitioner is disposed of accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 34.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second bail application, filed bypassing the trial court despite restriction in the earlier order, should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶13
Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2SCC 45
Vijendra Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
