RAGHUNATH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This IInd bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC with the following prayer:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Ist bail application filed by the petitioners U/s. 438 CrPC was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.7.2013 with liberty to surrender before the court below and this is second bail application U/s. 438 CrPC, but still he wants that this IInd bail application should be allowed on the grounds mentioned in the bail application.

(3.) Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that on 16.7.2013 the same Advocate Mr. Hari Narain Gupta had requested to this Court on 16.7.2013 that he wanted to withdraw the Ist bail application moved by the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC with liberty to surrender before the trial court and if thereafter they move the bail application before the Court concerned, then the same should be decided in accordance with law, but instead of this, they misled this Court and moved the instant second bail application under Section 438 CrPC, which is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ganesh Raj v. State, reported in 2005 (1) ILR (Raj.) 629 as well as the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 8385/2015 (Chand Prakash and Anr. v. State). Learned PP has further requested to this court that heavy cost should be imposed against the petitioners, so that such type of practise should not be adopted by the learned Advocate in future, particularly when he himself had requested to this Court on 16.7.2013 for withdrawal of the Ist bail application under Section 438 CrPC.