VIPUL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This successive bail application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I- 148 of 2020 (E- Gujcop-11198035201938 of 2020 registered with Mahuva Police Station, District: Bhavnagar for offences under Ss. 302, 323, 504, 34, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 135 of the G. P. Act.

(2.) What is noteworthy is the fact that on earlier occasions, the application for bail preferred by this applicant was withdrawn. In fact the present applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 7446 of 2021 which was withdrawn by learned advocate for the present applicant vide order dtd. 9/7/2021. Thereafter, the present applicant preferred another successive bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 20506 of 2021 that was also rejected by a reasoned order vide order dtd. 21/1/2021 wherein the same learned advocate Ms. Urvashi K. Mehta has appeared. Thereafter, another successive bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 6987 of 2022 was preferred wherein on 13/4/2022, the same advocate Ms. Urvashi K. Mehta sought permission to withdraw the application and hence, the application was permitted to be withdrawn by the Coordinate Bench. Thereafter, a note for speaking to minutes was filed seeking a reasoned order. However, said note for speaking to minutes was not entertained vide order dtd. 10/6/2022. Thereafter, the same advocate Ms. Urvashi K. Mehta has preferred this application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 8441 of 2023 seeking regular bail in respect of the present applicant without disclosing the facts about earlier applications. In fact in paragraph no. 4 of the application, all that is stated by the present applicant is that "it is submitted that the copy of the order of previous bail application was annexed hereto and marked as Annexure D", and only the order dtd. 13/4/2022 and order for note for speaking to minutes dtd. 10/6/2022 has been annexed along with the application, suppressing the facts about earlier bail applications preferred by the same advocate i.e. learned advocate Ms. Urvashi K. Mehta.

(3.) When the present application was preferred though nothing is stated in the application about earlier applications nor anything is stated about under what circumstances, the present application has been preferred and whether there are any change of circumstances or not, straightway this application is preferred as if it is preferred for the first time after charge- sheet.