(1.) Rule. Learned A.P.P. Shri P.R.Abichandani, waives service of Rule.
(2.) The petitioner - accused has filed this 2nd Bail Application after submission of charge sheet. His first Bail Application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before the trial Court after submission of charge sheet. Accordingly, after submission of charge-sheet the petitioner accused once again approached the trial Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.507 of 2002. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, by his impugned Judgment and order dated 28.6.2002 rejected the Bail Application of the petitioner - accused on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances after his first Bail Application was rejected by the trial Court and mere filing of charge sheet is no ground to release the accused on Bail. The learned Judge also considered the fact that name of the applicant - accused was clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. Hence, this 2nd Bail Application.
(3.) Learned Counsel Shri A.D.Shah, appearing for the petitioner - accused firstly submitted that in this case the petitioner is charged for offences u/ss.153(A), 427, 295 and 198 I.P.Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. Shri Shah submitted that out of these offences except for the offence u/s.427 I.P.Code the sanction is must. He submitted that in the charge-sheet itself it has been stated that the sanction is already applied way back on 17.5.2002 from the competent Authority, but the same is not received so far and therefore in anticipation that the sanction will be granted they have submitted the charge-sheet. He submitted that till such sanction is granted the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter and therefore the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. In support of his submission Shri Shah has tried to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANIRUDHSINHJI JADEJA V/S. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 1995 SC 2390.