DAYARAM PATEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Brief sequence of events relevant and essential for disposal of this bail application is narrated hereinbelow.

(2.) A suo moto Bail Cancellation Application No.36/2013 was registered against the petitioner herein on the directions of the Bench which granted bail to the petitioner. However, even before the said application could be decided, the petitioner jumped bail before the trial court and owing to the forfeiture of his bail bonds, the said Bail Cancellation Application was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 5.10.2015. The petitioner who was re-arrested after nearly 2 1/2 years of having absconded, again applied for grant of bail by filing Bail Application No.2630/2016, which was rejected by this Court on 30.5.2016. The second bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 5.10.2016 and the third one was dismissed on 6.7.2017. Now the petitioner has moved this fourth application for bail on the purported ground that the co-accused Vinodgiri, who too was sitting in the offending vehicle with the petitioner, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2017 and hence, the petitioner too deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) Shri Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner is entitled to indulgence of bail on parity and implored the Court to accept the instant fourth bail application.