SWARANJIT ALIAS SUNIL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issue involved in these four petitions, bearing Crl. Misc.-M Nos. 16991, 20108, 23647 and 24843 of 2011 is as to whether an accused filing a bail application before any court is required to mention about the pendency or decision of earlier bail application(s) filed by him in any court. This court had earlier considered the issue in Crl. Misc. No. 44923-M of 2007, decided on 24.3.2008, in which the following directions were issued:-

(2.) The matter was considered by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice and it was decided to circulate the same to all District & Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh and the Registry had circulated the same vide memo dated 6.11.2008.

(3.) The petitioner applied for bail in FIR No. 23 dated 22.2.2011, registered under Section 420 IPC at P.S. Guhla, District Kaithal by filing a petition in this Court on 27.5.2011 which was listed before the Court on 1.6.2011 and notice of motion was issued for 8.8.2011. On 23.9.2011, the petition was disposed of as infructuous on the statement of learned Counsel for the State that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court on 12.8.2011. To ascertain as to whether the factum of pendency of the present petition before this Court was mentioned in the bail application filed by the petitioner before the court below, a report was called from the court concerned. Learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide memo dated 20.10.2011 has sent a report given by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla stating therein that the factum of pendency of the bail application before this Court, was not mentioned in the application for bail filed in the court below.