BISHUNDEO SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been referred by Hon'ble Single Judge, for deciding the issue, that if the previous anticipatory bail order was for a limited period till submission of the charge-sheet and the accused after grant of anticipatory bail has surrendered before the Court for furnishing bail bond, whether in such cases on submission of charge-sheet, second anticipatory bail application is maintainable or the applicant will have to surrender and obtain an order of bail under Sections 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Single Judge has referred these matters in view of divergent opinion among the Judges about the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail application in such circumstance.

(2.) Petitioners in these applications were granted anticipatory bail till submission of the charge-sheet. Subsequently when the charge-sheet was submitted, again they filed application for grant of anticipatory bail, which gave rise to question whether in terms of previous order, they are required to appear and surrender before the Court below for seeking regular bail or their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the second occasion could be allowed.

(3.) The issue has been framed in view of the Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in the case of Guru Baksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR(SC) 1632 as well as divergent views taken by different Benches in the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 1 SCC 667 in the case of Nirmaljeet Kaur v. State of M.P. as well as in the case of Mahendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar,2004 3 PatLJR 491, Sheochandra Singh v. State of Bihar,2007 4 BBCJ(SC) 66 as well as in the case of Jagnarayan Yadav alias Babajee and Ors. v. State of Bihar,2010 2 PatLJR 684. The view taken in Salauddin's case has been followed in all these cases, with certain observations/modifications but so far the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Anirudh Pd. alias Sadhu Yadav v. State of Bihar,2006 2 PatLJR 676 is concerned, a different view has been taken.