RUNU ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide his order dated 26.5.2005, a learned Single Judge directed the office to place the records of B.A. No. 1365/2005 before one of us (Chief Justice) for constituting a larger Bench as after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application the instant application has been filed and this is a second application about which the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam in view of the decision of another learned Single Judge in Utpal Sarma v. State of Assam submitted that it is not maintainable. In B.A. 1412 of 2005 the same question is involved. That is how these two matters have come up before our Division Bench for considering the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail application.

(2.) The contention of Sri. B. K. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in B. A. No. 1365 of 2005 was that the second anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratal Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. whereas according to Mr. Mushahary, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, it would not be maintainable in view of the judgment of our own High Court in Utpal Sarma (supra) which has followed the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Maya Rani Guin v. State of West BengaP.

(3.) The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') envisages grant of bail by the High Court under following three Sections:- (1) Before arrest of the accused under section 438 of the Code', which reads as under:-