VARUN KUMAR Vs. CHHUNNA SIKARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sharma submits that on 9.5.2003 learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna rejected the bail application in Crime No. 354/03 under sections 394, 427, 294, 308 and 506-B IPC. Thereafter, a second bail application was moved which was listed before the same Court on 31.5.2003 and the matter was adjourned as prayed for. The second bail application was listed before learned Sessions Judge on 2.6.2003 and it was adjourned on a prayer made by learned counsel for the accused. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 4.6.2003 when learned Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda, Guna granted the bail. Shri Sharma submits that grant of second bail application after a gap of 25 days by another Additional Sessions Judge appears to be improper and the same is contrary to decisions on the point.

(2.) ON the other hand Shri Solanki submits that there was change in circumstances. According to him when first bail application was rejected, challan was not filed. At the time of second application challan was put up and charges under section 308 and 397 were dropped, hence, learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to grant bail. Shri Solanki also submits that the incident took place over demand of sandwiches in a hotel the accused who are aged between 19-23 years. Shri Solanki also submits that this is their first offence and it is only a case of scuffle in a hotel and the accused have been wrongly framed up for serious offences. Shri Ahirwar, learned Additional Govt. Advocate submits that the complainant has not approached the Government to move an application for cancellation of bail and he has not received any instructions on this application.