# Kuldeep v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1217 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-09-17 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8196 of 2024 - **Bench:** Dr.Gautam Chowdhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuldeep-v-state-of-u-p-53859 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Manoj Kumar Gupta, G.A., Gorakh Yadav, Jitendra Kumar ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the second bail application solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration, without presenting any new or relevant facts. HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 436A - Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 307, 354, 376, 504, 511 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 479- Second Bail Application - filed after first rejected - FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 307, 354, 376, 504, 511 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Allegations of harassment for dowry, demand of dowry, attempted sexual assault, physical assault resulting in spinal injuries and paralysis of both legs - Applicant's plea that in custody for over one year and eleven months however, trial progress slow with only one prosecution witness examined - Legal reliance: Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - first-time offender who has spent one-third of maximum prescribed imprisonment in custody should be released on bail - Court finds that, Section 479 BNSS more beneficial than Section 436A CrPC, but defense counsel unable to provide clear details regarding victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC; admitted attempts to record statement failed despite charge sheet filed - while considering the Supreme Court and High Court rulings in which law settled that bail cannot be granted merely on ground of delay in trial and successive bail applications permissible only with significant change in circumstances or law - held, accused failed to present fresh grounds beyond custody duration and granting bail would hinder trial progress - hence, considering the seriousness of allegations, applicant's role, and prima facie case established by prosecution, the second bail application is not maintainable - thus, bail application stands rejected. (Para - 13, 14, 15) Application Rejected. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 2005 SCC OnLine SC 117 - State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 - Satyapal v. State of U.P., 1998 SCC OnLine All 1224 - State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 - Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42. LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. LIST OF KEYWORDS Second Bail Application - Dowry Harassment - Attempted Sexual Assault - Delay in Trial - 1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Successive Bail - Custody Duration - Prima Facie Case - Rejection of Bail. CASE ARISING FROM Case No. 954/2023, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - Allegations of dowry harassment, sexual assault attempt, and grievous injury to victim. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri A C Srivastava and Senior Advocate V P Srivastava. Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh, GA. ## Text 9 All. Kuldeep Vs. State of U.P. 1217 reliance placed upon the various decisions are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 22. No case for enlarging the applicant on bail is made out. 23. The bail application stands rejected. ---------- (2025) 9 ILRA 1217 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR.GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8196 of 2024 Kuldeep ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: A.C. Srivastava, Shubham Singh Counsel for the Opposite Party: Manoj Kumar Gupta, G.A., Gorakh Yadav, Jitendra Kumar ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the second bail application solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration, without presenting any new or relevant facts. HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 436A - Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 307, 354, 376, 504, 511 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 479- Second Bail Application - filed after first rejected - FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 307, 354, 376, 504, 511 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Allegations of harassment for dowry, demand of dowry, attempted sexual assault, physical assault resulting in spinal injuries and paralysis of both legs - Applicant's plea that in custody for over one year and eleven months however, trial progress slow with only one prosecution witness examined - Legal reliance: Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - first-time offender who has spent one-third of maximum prescribed imprisonment in custody should be released on bail - Court finds that, Section 479 BNSS more beneficial than Section 436A CrPC, but defense counsel unable to provide clear details regarding victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC; admitted attempts to record statement failed despite charge sheet filed - while considering the Supreme Court and High Court rulings in which law settled that bail cannot be granted merely on ground of delay in trial and successive bail applications permissible only with significant change in circumstances or law - held, accused failed to present fresh grounds beyond custody duration and granting bail would hinder trial progress - hence, considering the seriousness of allegations, applicant's role, and prima facie case established by prosecution, the second bail application is not maintainable - thus, bail application stands rejected. (Para - 13, 14, 15) Application Rejected. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 2005 SCC OnLine SC 117 - State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 - Satyapal v. State of U.P., 1998 SCC OnLine All 1224 - State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 - Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42. LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. LIST OF KEYWORDS Second Bail Application - Dowry Harassment - Attempted Sexual Assault - Delay in Trial - 1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Successive Bail - Custody Duration - Prima Facie Case - Rejection of Bail. CASE ARISING FROM Case No. 954/2023, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - Allegations of dowry harassment, sexual assault attempt, and grievous injury to victim. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri A C Srivastava and Senior Advocate V P Srivastava. Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh, GA. (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) 1. ितमाि दाक्डिक प्रकीणम जमाित प्राथमिा पत्र आिेदक की ओर से मु०अ०सं० 954/2023, अन्तगमत धारा 498-A, 323, 325, 307, 354, 376, 504, 511 भा०दं०वि० एिं धारा 3/4 दहेज प्रनतर्ेध अचधनियम, थािा कवििगर, क्जला गाक्जयाबाद में जमाित पर मुक्त करिे हेतु प्रस्तुत ककया गया है। 2. आिेदक की ओर से उपक्स्थत विद्िाि अचधिक्ता श्री ए०सी० श्रीिास्ति, िररटठ विद्िाि अचधिक्ता श्री िी०पी० श्रीिास्ति एिं राज्य की ओर से उपक्स्थत विद्िाि अचधिक्ता श्री चन्दि लसंह को सुिा तथा पत्रािल का पररशीलि ककया। 3. आिेदक का यह द्वितीय जमाित आिेदि पत्र है। आिेदक का प्रथम जमाित, जमाित आिेदि पत्र सं० 53606/2023 में इस न्यायालय के आदेश ददिांक 14.12.2023 के द्िारा निरस्त ककया गया है। 4. संक्षेप में अलभयोजि कथािक यह है कक िाद द्िारा ददिांक 21.10.2023 को समय 13.40 बजे थािा कवििगर पर इस आशय की ररपोटम दजम करायी गयी कक उसकी बहि िीतू लसंह का वििाह ददिांक 05.02.2021 को प्रशान्त कुमार के साथ दहन्दू ररनत-ररिाज के अिुसार संपन्ि हुआ। शाद में लगभग 16 लाख रूपये खचम ककया। िाद की बहि को उसके ससुराल िाले शाद के ददि से कम दहेज लािे का तािा देिे लगे। सास सविता, ससुर लशििाथ, जेठ कुलद प, जेठािी प्रीनत तथा पनत प्रशान्त आये ददि दहेज में 10 लाख रूपये िकद लािे की मांग करते थे। ददिांक 3 अगस्त 2023 को िाद की बहि िे फोि पर बताया कक जेठ िे उसके साथ अश्ल ल हरकत और जबरदस्ती बलात्कार करिे का प्रयास ककया। ददिांक 20.10.23 को प्रशान्त का फोि आया कक अपिी बहि को ले जाओं, इस िह अपिे घर में िह ं रखिा। िाद सुबह तीि बजे प्रशान्त का फोि आया और कहा कक आपकी बहि सिोदया अस्पताल में भती है। िाद ि उसके पररिार िाले जब अस्पताल पहुंचे तो िहां पर िाद की बहि िे बताया कक कल रात कर ब 10 बजे उसका जेठ उसके कमरें में आया तथा जबरदस्ती बलात्कार करिे का प्रयास ककया विरोध पर िाद की बहि को ह उल्टा सभी 9 All. Kuldeep Vs. State of U.P. 1219 लोगों िे मारा पीटा जाि बचािे के ललए िाद की बहिभाग कर घर की छत पर पहुंची तो िहां उक्त सभी लोगों िे जाि से मारिे की िीयत से उसकी बहि िीतू को मकाि की तीसर मंक्जल से धक्का दे ददया। क्जससे िाद की बहि र ड की हड्िी टूट गयी दोिों पैर पैरालाइस हो गये। 5. आिेदक के विद्िाि अचधिक्ता िे तकम प्रस्तुत ककया कक इस मामलें में ििीि तथ्य यह है कक आिेदक का यह द्वितीय जमाित आिेदि पत्र है तथा आिेदक एक िर्म, ग्यारह माह, पांच ददिस से कारागार में निरूद्ध है, ककंतु इस िाद से संबंचधत सत्र पर क्षण में अभी तक केिल अलभयोगी/अलभयोजि साक्षी सं०-1 का ह पर क्षण हो पाया है। इससे पररलक्षक्षत हो रहा है कक इस िाद से संबंचधत सत्र पर क्षण का निस्तारण निकट भविटय में होिे की संभाििा िह ं है। आिेदक विचाराधीि कैद के रूप में अचधक समय से कारागार में निरुद्ध है। उिके द्िारा अपिे तकम के समथमि में भारतीय िागररक सुरक्षा संदहता, 2023 में धारा 479 भारतीय िागररक सुरक्षा संदहता के अंतगमत 'एक विचाराधीि कैद को दहरासत में रखिे की अचधकतम अिचध' से संबंचधत एक प्रािधाि है, की ओर न्यायालय का ध्याि आकवर्मत ककया, क्जसमें यह आग्रह ककया गया है कक पहल बार अपराध करिे िाले व्यक्क्त (क्जसे पहले कभी ककसी अपराध के ललए दोर्ी िह ं ठहराया गया है) को न्यायालय द्िारा मुचलके पर ररहा ककया जािा आिश्यक है, यदद िह ककसी विशेर् कािूि के तहत ऐसे अपराध के ललए निददमटट कारािास की अचधकतम अिचध के एक-नतहाई तक की अिचध के ललए दहरासत में रह चुका है तथा इस तथ्य को ध्याि में रखते हुए कक भारतीय िागररक सुरक्षा संदहता के तहत प्रनतस्थावपत प्रािधाि दंि प्रकिया संदहता, 1973 की धारा 436ए की तुलिा में अचधक लाभकार है, क्जसमें पहल बार अपराधी द्िारा भुगती गई अिचध ऐसे अपराध के ललए निददमटट कारािास की अचधकतम अिचध के आधे तक निधामररत की गई थी। पुिः उिका कथि है कक आिेदक की ओर से यह आश्िासि ददया गया है कक िह कािूि की प्रकिया में सहयोग करिे के ललए तैयार है और जब भी आिश्यकता होगी िह ईमािदार से अदालत के समक्ष खुद को उपलब्ध कराएगा और उि सभी शतों को स्िीकार करिे के ललए भी तैयार है जो न्यायालय उस पर अचधरोवपत करेगी। आिेदक निदोर् है तथा िह इस प्रकरण में दद० 22.10.2023 से कारागार में निरुद्ध है। इसललए आिेदक को जमाित पर छोड ददया जाय। 6. विद्िाि अपर शासकीय अचधिक्ता िे अलभयुक्त के जमाित का प्रबल विरोध करते हुए तकम प्रस्तुत ककया कक अलभयुक्त की ओर से उसे जमाित पर मुक्त ककये 1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES जािे हेतु केिल कारागार में बबतायी गयी अचधक अिचध को आधार बिाया गया है, इसके अनतररक्त उिके द्िारा इस मामलें में कोई ििीि तथ्य की ओर न्यायालय का ध्याि आकृटट िह ं ककया गया। इसललए, अलभयुक्त को जमाित पर मुक्त ककये जािे हेतु केिल उक्त अलभयुक्त द्िारा कारागार में बबतायी गयी अचधक अिचध आधार िह ं हो सकता है। उिके द्िारा न्यायालय का ध्याि माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के कुछ िजीरों की ओर आकृटट करते हुए अिुरोध ककया गया कक अलभयुक्त जमाित पर मुक्त ककये जािे योग्य िह ं है तथा आिेदक का यह द्वितीय जमाित आिेदि पत्र को निरस्त कर ददया जाय। 7. यहाां प्रासांश्रगक तथ्य यह भी है कक इस िाद में बहस तकह के दौरान जब न्यायालय द्िारा आिेदक के विद्िान अश्रधितता से पीडडता के धारा 164 दां०प्र०सां० का बयान कब हुआ?, के सांबांध में पूछा गया, तब उनके द्िारा किन ककया गया कक उन्हें इसे तथ्य के सांबांध में थपष्ि तथ्य प्रथतुत करने हेतु अल्प समय प्रदान कर टदया जाय, ककांतु यहाांदुभाहग्यिपूणह है कक न्यायालय के समक्ष आिेदक का यह द्वितीय जमानत पत्र प्रथतुत है, ककांतु आिेदक के विद्िान अश्रधितता उपयुहतत सुसांगत तथ्य से पूणहतः अननशभज्ञ है। पुनः कुछ समय उपराांत उनके द्िारा आगे यह कहा गया कक पीडडता का उपयुहतत बयान वििेचक द्िारा कई बार अांककत करने का प्रयास ककया गया, लेककन अांककत नहीां ककया जा सका है, जबकक आरोप पत्र दाखखल ककया जा चुका है। 8. उभय पक्ष के विद्िाि अचधिक्तागण द्िारा ददये गये तकों एिं माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ि उच्चतम न्यायालय द्िारा निम्ि िजीरों में प्रनतपाददत विचध-व्यिस्था का अिुशीलि ककया, जो निम्िितः- 9. नदीम अहमद बनाम पक्श्चम बांगाल 2005 SCC OnLine SC 117 के मामलें माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्िारा यह अिधाररत ककया गया कक केिल मुकदमे के समापि में देर के आधार पर ज़माित याचचका स्िीकार िह ं कर सकती, जो निम्िित हैः- "अलभयोजि पक्ष द्िारा प्रथम दृटटया मामलें की मौजूदगी, अपराध की गंभीरता और ज़माित पर रहते हुए धमकी और प्रलोभि द्िारा गिाह के साथ छेडछाड के आरोपों पर विचार ककए बबिा केिल मुकदमे के समापि में देर के आधार पर ज़माित याचचका स्िीकार िह ं कर सकती। चूाँकक, उपरोक्त कारक अलभयुक्त के ज़माित मांगिे के अचधकार के मूल में जाते हैं, इसललए इि पर विचार ि करिा और केिल लंबी कैद के आधार पर ज़माित देिा, ज़माित देिे के उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश 9 All. Kuldeep Vs. State of U.P. 1221 को निटप्रभािी करता है। यद्यवप ककसी अलभयुक्त को जमाित के ललए लगातार आिेदि करिे का अचधकार है, कफर भी ऐसी अिुिती जमाित याचचकाओं पर विचार करिे िाले न्यायालय का यह कतमव्य है कक िह उि कारणों और आधारों पर विचार करें, क्जि पर वपछल जमाित याचचकाएाँ खाररज की गई थीं और ऐसे मामलों में न्यायालय का यह भी कतमव्य है कक िह उि िए आधारों को दजम करे क्जिके कारण उसे वपछल याचचकाओं में ददए गए दृक्टटकोण से लभन्ि दृक्टटकोण अपिािे के ललए प्रेररत ककया गया। उक्त आदेश में इस बात पर भी ज़ोर ददया कक इस न्यायालय के वपछलें आदेशों की अिदेखी करिा, समाि पक्षों के बीच एक मामले में ददए गए उच्च न्यायालय के निणमयों की बाध्यकार प्रकृनत के लसद्धांत का उल्लंघि है।" 10. महाराष्र राज्य बनाम बुद्श्रधकोिा सुभा रािः 1989 सक्प्लमेंि (2) एससीसी 605 के मामले में माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्िारा यह अिधाररत ककया गया है कक यदद एक बार कोई जमाित आिेदि खाररज कर ददया गया हो तो पूिम में प्रस्तुत ककये गये तथ्य क्स्थनत में कोई बदलाि ककए बबिा द्वितीय जमाित आिेदि पत्र को मंजूर करिा िस्तुतः पहले के फैसले को खाररज करिे जैसा होगा, तथा यह एक ऐसा महत्िपूणम पररितमि है, क्जसका पहले के निणमय पर सीधा प्रभाि पडता है, ि कक केिल औपचाररक पररितमि। इसे निम्िािुसार मािा गया है:- "7. Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the founding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It follows therefore that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. That law permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. Article 22 casts certain obligations on the authorities in the event of arrest of an individual accused of the commission of a crime against society or the Nation. In cases of undertrials charged with the commission of an offence or offences the court is generally called upon to decide whether to release him on bail or to commit him to jail. This decision has to be made, mainly in non-bailable cases, having regard to the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which it was committed, the background of the accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution, etc. In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. One such Application No. 36 of 1989 was rejected by Suresh, J. himself. Undeterred the respondent went on preferring successive applications for bail. 1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES All such pending bail applications were rejected by Puranik, J. by a common order on 6-6-1989. Unfortunately, Puranik, J. was not aware of the pendency of yet another bail application No. 995 of 1989 otherwise he would have disposed it of by the very same common order. Before the ink was dry on Puranik, J.'s order, it was upturned by the impugned order. It is not as if the court passing the impugned order was not aware of the decision of Puranik, J.; in fact there is a reference to the same in the impugned order. Could this be done in the absence of new facts and changed circumstances? What is important to realise is that in Criminal Application No. 375 of 1989, the respondent had made an identical request as is obvious from one of the prayers (extracted earlier) made therein. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Between the two orders there was a gap of only two days and it is nobody's case that during these two days drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed reversing all earlier orders including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the factsituation. In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the court's time as a judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with dispatch. It will also result in consistency. In their view that we take we are fortified by the observations of this Court in para 5 of the judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [(1987) 2 SCC 684]. For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the factsituation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as 'a bit out of the ordinary'. Judicial restraint demands that we say no more. 11. सत्यपाल बनाम यूपी राज्य, 1998 एससीसी ऑनलाइन ऑल 1224: (1998) 37 एसीसी 287 के मामले में इस न्यायालय की एकल न्यायपीठ द्िारा एक प्रश्ि का जिाब देते हुए निणमय ककया था कक क्या एक िया तकम जो पहले उपलब्ध था उसे दूसरे जमाित आिेदि में आगे बढािे की अिुमनत द जािी चादहए या िह ं, खडिपीठ के समक्ष प्रश्ि इस प्रकार थाः- 9 All. Kuldeep Vs. State of U.P. 1223 "1. The following question has been referred by learned single Judge to be decided by this Court:-- "Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected"." The Division Bench held that a fresh argument in a second bail application cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts which were available to the accused at the time of the moving and rejection of the first bail application. The answer as given to the referred question is as follows:- XXX XXX XXX XXX "9...........................Accordingly our answer to the question referred is that fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected." 12. माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय िे म.प्र. राज्य बनाम काजादः (2001) 7 एससीसी 673 के मामले में जोर देते हुए कहा कक यद्यवप िलमक जमाित आिेदि स्िीकायम हैं, लेककि बदल हुई पररक्स्थनतयों में। इसे निम्िािुसार मािा गया है:- "8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments." 13. इसके अलािा, माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय िे कल्याण चांद्र सरकार बनाम राजेश रांजन : (2005) 2 एससीसी 42 के मामले में जोर देते हुए कहा कक यदद तथ्यों में पररितमि या कािूि में कोई बदलाि होता है जो वपछले आदेश को खाररज कर देगा तो बाद में जमाित आिेदि पत्र दायर ककया जा सकता है, इसे निम्िािुसार मािा गया है:- "8. On 23-9-2002 the accusedrespondent moved the eighth bail application which came to be allowed by the High Court by its order dated 23-52003 solely on the ground that the accusedrespondent had undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years and that there was no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and an appeal filed against the said grant of bail came to be allowed (Ed. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, op. cit. fn. 2, above) on the ground that the High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement 1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES when on bail. This Court held [Ed.: In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, op. cit. fn. above] that since the above factors go to the root of the right of the accused to seek bail, non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order of the High Court granting bail. This Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. This Court in that order also found fault with the High Court for not recording any fresh grounds while granting bail and for not taking into consideration the basis on which earlier bail applications were rejected. The Court also emphasised in the said order that ignoring the earlier orders of this Court is violative of the principle of binding nature of the judgments of the superior court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and noted that such approach of the High Court in effect amounts to ignoring or overruling and thus rendering ineffective the principles enunciated in the earlier orders especially of the superior courts. On that basis, the appeal of the complainant challenging the grant of bail came to be allowed cancelling the bail granted to the respondent. This order of this Court is reported as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]." **** "20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, are binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view of the guarantee conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by the courts earlier, including the Apex Court of the country." उपयुमक्त िजीरों के विहंगम पररशीलिोपरांत इस न्यायालय का अलभमत है कक अलभयुक्त की ओर से उसे जमाित पर मुक्त ककये जािे हेतु केिल कारागार में बबतायी गयी अचधक अिचध को आधार बिाया गया है, इसके अनतररक्त उिके द्िारा इस मामलें में कोई युक्क्तयुक्त एिं सुसंगत ििीि तथ्य की ओर न्यायालय का ध्याि आकृटट िह ं ककया गया। इसललए, अलभयुक्त को जमाित पर मुक्त ककये जािे हेतु उसके द्िारा केिल कारागार में बबतायी गयी अचधक अिचध आधार िह ं हो सकता है। 14. ितमाि मामले में जमाित संबंधी विचध के स्थावपत लसद्धांतों को ध्याि में 9 All. Julfikar Ali Vs. State of U.P. 1225 रखते हुए एिं उभय पक्षकारों के विद्िाि अचधिक्ताओं के कथिों, आरोपों की प्रकृनत, आिेदक की भूलमका और इस मामलें के इस तथ्य को ध्याि में रखते हुए कक अलभयोजि पक्ष िे, अलभलेख पर उपलब्ध सामग्री के आधार पर, अलभयुक्त के विरुद्ध प्रथम दृटटया मामला स्थावपत ककया है और न्यायालय का यह भी मत है कक अलभलेख पर लाए गए तथ्यों से स्पटट रूप से संकेत लमलता है कक आिेदक को जमाित पर मुक्त ककये जािे हेतु कोई ििीि उपयुक्त आधार प्रस्तुत िह ं ककया गया तथा उक्त अलभयुक्त को ज़माित पर ररहा करिे से मुकदमें की प्रगनत बाचधत होिा संभाव्य है। इसललए, मामलें के गुण-दोर् पर बबिा कोई विचार व्यक्त ककए यह जमाित आिेदि पत्र स्िीकार ककए जािे योग्य िह ं है। अतः यह जमाित आिेदि पत्र अस्िीकार ककया जाता है। 15. तद्िुसार, यह द्वितीय जमाित आिेदि पत्र निरस्त ककया जाता है। ---------- (2025) 9 ILRA 1225 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11856 of 2025 Julfikar Ali ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Amit Misra Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act despite recovery of 101 kg cannabis, considering alleged non-compliance with Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 regarding sampling procedure and the restrictive provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act. HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 20, 35, 37, 42, 50, 52-A, 53-A, 54, 67 - Constitution of India - Article 21- Bail Application - Police raid - recovery on the spot of 101 kg cannabis - FIR lodged under sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act - recovering of cannabis from joint possession of three accused - plea taken that no independent witnesses, and non-compliance with Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 regarding sampling, as only two out of 38 packets were tested - relied upon 'Aman Fidel Chris vs. NCB, Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal', and 'Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab', applicant pleaded that statutory instructions must be strictly followed - Court finds non-compliance with Standing Order mandatory, leading to adverse inference - court held that the applicant's contention on improper sampling was well-founded, noted absence of rebuttal by prosecution, and emphasized Article 21 and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. - Hence, bail granted subject to strict conditions against tampering, intimidation, misuse of liberty, or criminal activity, with liberty to cancel bail upon violation - Application Allowed. (Para - 13, 14, 15) Application Allowed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Aman Fidel Chris vs. Narcotics Control Bureau [Crl. Appeal No. 1027/2015 & Clr. Misc. Bail Application No. 511/2019 and Crl. M.A. No. 1660/2020] - Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal [Appeal No. 3573-3574 of 2025