ROHITKUMAR BABUBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.H. Solanki for learned Advocate Mr. Malaykumar S. Patel for the applicant and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State.

(2.) Vide an order dtd. 25/7/2022 this Court had inter alia noted that while the present application was pending considering of this Court, in the interregnum, the present applicant had approached the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) with a second application for being granted anticipatory bail and whereas vide an order dtd. 21/6/2022, the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), had allowed the said application. Having regard to the same, the applicant was called upon to show cause as to why this Court may not take suo motu cognizance and issue notice for cancellation of the anticipatory bail order. This Court has also called upon the explanations from the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) as well as from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). It appears that both the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge and learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), have submitted their explanations. The learned Principal and District Judge had inter alia informed this Court that as per the practice and procedure, when an application is preferred by any applicant praying for grant of anticipatory bail and whereas in any application of the same applicant had already been taken up, then the Registry of the Court concerned would notify the learned Court taking up such matter about the earlier bail application filed by the same applicant.

(3.) This Court has perused the record forwarded by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and whereas this Court finds that the Registry had noted that the number of the earlier application which had been considered by the Sessions Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1614 of 2022 was specifically mentioned by the Registry. It also appears that having regard to such fact, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had transferred the application to the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, who had earlier decided and rejected the application.