# Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1216
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc.IInd Bail Application No. 26925 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51546
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 328 &
506 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3/4 -
Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67
- Second Bail Application - Requirement of New
Grounds - Judicial Discipline
The applicant, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, filed a
second bail application in Case Crime No. 324 of
2021 under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC,
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, and Section 67 IT Act,
Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Prayagraj,
alleging false implication in a case involving
rape, poisoning, criminal intimidation, and digital
offenses against the complainant and her
daughter. The applicant argued delayed FIR,
lack of specific details, enmity due to a prior
dispute, inconsistencies in St.ments under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no medical
evidence of rape, the complainant's daughter
being a major (19 years), and no evidence of
video recording or blackmail. The prosecution
countered that the first bail rejection order
implied consideration of all arguments, and a
3 All. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
second bail application required new grounds,
which were absent. Held: The court, relying on
Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar ((2020) 2 SCC 118),
St. of Maharashtra Vs Buddhikota Subha Rao
(1989 Supp (2) SCC 605), Satyapal Vs St. of U.P.
(1998 SCC OnLine All 1224), St. of M.P. Vs Kajad
((2001) 7 SCC 673), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs
Rajesh Ranjan ((2005) 2 SCC 42), and Hari
Singh Mann Vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001)
1 SCC 169), rejected the second bail application.
The court held that successive bail applications
require substantial new grounds, and reviewing
the first rejection order without new facts would
amount to impermissible review under criminal
law. The applicant's failure to challenge the first
rejection in the Supreme Court and reliance on
the same grounds rendered the application
unsustainable.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future
contingencies regarding the anticipatory
bail being granted to applicant shall also be
taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment
of the Apex Court.

39. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is allowed. Let the accusedapplicant- Smt. Vinita Mehrotra be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case
crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make
herself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
her from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall
appear before the trial court on each date
fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any
of the above conditions the court concerned
shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

40. It is made clear that observations
made hereinabove are exclusively for
deciding the instant anticipatory bail
application and shall not affect the trial.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1216
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Crl. Misc.IInd Bail Application No. 26925 of 2023

Yogendra Kumar Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Akanksha Tripathi, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra,
Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, Ms. Tanisha Jahangir
Monir, Sri Zia Uddin Ahmad

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Amit Tiwari, G.A., Sri Shakti Shanker Tiwari,
Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 328 &
506 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3/4 -
Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67
- Second Bail Application - Requirement of New
Grounds - Judicial Discipline
The applicant, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, filed a
second bail application in Case Crime No. 324 of
2021 under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC,
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, and Section 67 IT Act,
Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Prayagraj,
alleging false implication in a case involving
rape, poisoning, criminal intimidation, and digital
offenses against the complainant and her
daughter. The applicant argued delayed FIR,
lack of specific details, enmity due to a prior
dispute, inconsistencies in St.ments under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no medical
evidence of rape, the complainant's daughter
being a major (19 years), and no evidence of
video recording or blackmail. The prosecution
countered that the first bail rejection order
implied consideration of all arguments, and a
3 All. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
second bail application required new grounds,
which were absent. Held: The court, relying on
Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar ((2020) 2 SCC 118),
St. of Maharashtra Vs Buddhikota Subha Rao
(1989 Supp (2) SCC 605), Satyapal Vs St. of U.P.
(1998 SCC OnLine All 1224), St. of M.P. Vs Kajad
((2001) 7 SCC 673), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs
Rajesh Ranjan ((2005) 2 SCC 42), and Hari
Singh Mann Vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001)
1 SCC 169), rejected the second bail application.
The court held that successive bail applications
require substantial new grounds, and reviewing
the first rejection order without new facts would
amount to impermissible review under criminal
law. The applicant's failure to challenge the first
rejection in the Supreme Court and reliance on
the same grounds rendered the application
unsustainable.

Case Law Cited:

1. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118

2. St. of Maharashtra Vs Buddhikota Subha Rao,
1989 Supp (2) SCC 605

3. Satyapal Vs St. of U.P., 1998 SCC OnLine All
1224

4. St. of M.P. Vs Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673

5. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan,
(2005) 2 SCC 42

6. Hari Singh Mann Vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa,
(2001) 1 SCC 169

7. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of Punj., (2015) 3 SCC
220

8. Hussain Vs Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. विामान िावण्डक प्रकीणा वद्विीय जमानि प्राथाना पत्र,
आवेिक योगेन्र कुमार वमश्रा की ओर से मु०अ०स०
324/2021, अन्िगाि िारा 376/ 328/ 506 भा०िां०वव०
एवां 3/4 पॉक्सो अविवनयम एवां 67 आई.टी एक्ट, थाना
कोिवाली, वजला इलाहाबाि में जमानि पर मुक्त करने हेिु प्रस्िुि
वकया गया है।

2. आवेिक की ववद्वान अविवक्ता िनीर्ा जहाांगीर मुनीर,
पररवािी के ववद्वान अविवक्तागण एवां श्री चांिन वसांह ववद्वान अपर
र्शासकीय अविवक्ता को सुना िथा पत्रावली का पररर्शीलन वकया।

3. आवेिक की ववद्वान अविवक्ता ने िका प्रस्िुि वकया वक
आवेिक को इस प्रकरण में झूठा फसाया गया है, उसने कवथि
अपराि काररि नहीं वकया है, प्रथम सूचना ररपोटा काफी ववलांब से
िजा करायी गयी है, वजसका कोई स्पष्टीकरण वाविनी मुकिमा ने नहीं
विया है, जबवक वाविनी के घर से थाने की िूरी मात्र 2 वकमी. है।
प्रथम सूचना ररपोटा में विन, िारीख, समय व स्थान नहीं विखाया
गया है। वाविनी ने उपरोक्त मुकिमा रांवजर्शन प्राथी व उसके पररवार
को बबााि व बिनाम करने की नीयि से झूांठा एवां फजी िजा कराया है
क्योंवक वाविनी ने अपने प्रथम सूचना ररपोटा में स्वयां ही यह कहा है
वक उसके पवि एवां आवेिक के मध्य लड़ाई के कारण मुकिमा कोटा
में चल रहा है। वाविनी के वचवकत्सीय परीक्षण आख्या िथा उसकी
पुत्री के वचवकत्सीय परीक्षण आख्या से िोनों पीवड़िाओां के साथ
बलात्कार वकये जाने की पुवष्ट नहीं होिी है, इसीप्रकार वाविनी के
बयान अन्िगाि िारा 161 व िारा 164 ि्.प्र.सां. में ववरोिाभार् है
िथा वाविनी की बेटी के बयान अांिगाि िारा 161 व िारा 164
िां.प्र.सां. में भी ववरोिाभार् है। मुख्य वचवकत्सा अविकारी द्वारा
वाविनी की बेटी के उम्र वनिाारण हेिु वकये गये वचवकत्सीय परीक्षण में
उसकी उम्र लगभग 19 वर्ा पायी गयी है, इसप्रकार वह बावलग थी
इसवलए आवेिक के ववरूद्ध पाक्सो अविवनयम का कोई अपराि
नहीं बनिा है, आवेिक ने वाविनी की पुत्री की कोई वीवड़यो
ररकावडिंग भी नहीं बनायी और न ही उसके द्वारा वाविनी की पुत्री को
ब्लैकमेल वकया गया, इसवलए आवेिक के ववरूद्ध िारा 67
आई.टी. एक्ट का भी कोई अपराि नहीं बनिा है। वाविनी एवां
आवेिक के बीच जो भी सांबांि थे वे एक ही ववभाग में कायारि होने
के कारण थे, इन समस्ि िथ्ज्यों को िेखिे हुए आवेिक वनिोर् है
इसवलए उसे जमानि पर िोड विया जाये। आवेिक विनाांक
18.04.2022 से कारागार में वनरूद्ध है।

4. आवेिक की ववद्वान अविवक्ता का कथन है वक प्रथम
जमानि आवेिन पत्र के वनस्िारण के समय आवेिक के ित्कालीन
ववद्वान अविवक्ता ने उपरोक्त िका प्रस्िुि वकये थे वकन्िु प्रथम जमानि
आवेिन पत्र के वनरस्त्रीकरण आिेर्श में उक्त िका उद्धृि नहीं वकये गये
हैं इसका अथा यह लगाया जाये की प्रथम जमानि आवेिन पत्र के
आिेर्श में उक्त बािों पर ध्यान विये वबना ही आवेिक का जमानि
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आवेिन पत्र वनरस्ि वकया गया है इसवलए उन्हीं िकों के आिार पर
आवेिक को जमानि प्रिान वकया जाये।

5. आवेिक की ववद्वान अविवक्ता का कथन है वक प्रथम
जमानि आवेिन पत्र सांख्या 24524 सन 2022, जो इस
न्यायालय की अन्य न्यायपीठ के आिेर्श विनाांक 17.10.2022
द्वारा वनरस्ि कर विया गया था। वह आिेर्श वनम्नवि है-

"1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwri, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned
counsel for the complainant and Sri Sanjay
Singh, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present bail application
has been filed by the applicant with a
prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime
No. 324 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506,
328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act
and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District Prayagraj.

3. After hearing the learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
counsel for the complainant and learned
A.G.A., and after perusing the averments
made in the present bail application as well
as rejection order, this Court is of the
opinion, that learned counsel for the
applicant could not point out any good
ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

4.
Accordingly,
the
bail
application filed on behalf of the applicant
is hereby rejected.

5. However, it is directed that the
trial of the aforesaid case pending before
the concerned court below be concluded
expeditiously,
preferably
within
eight
months in accordance with Section 309
Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been
laid down in the recent judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in
2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and
Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC
702, if there is no legal impediment."

6. उपरोक्त िलीलों के सांबांि में, आवेिक की ववद्वान
अविवक्ता ने आगे कहा वक प्रथम जमानि प्राथाना पत्र खाररज करिे
समय, आवेिक की ओर से िी गई िलीलों को वनरस्िीकरण आिेर्श
में िजा वकया जाना आवश्यक है, जबवक इसे िजा नहीं वकया गया है,
अपने िका के समथान में उन्होंने माननीय उच्चिम न्यायालय के
वनणाय मवहपाल बनाम राजेर्श कुमार उफा पोवलया और अन्य 2020
(2) एससीसी 118 में पाररि न्यायदृवष्ट के प्रस्िर 24, 25, 27
की ओर न्यायालय का ध्यान आकृष्ट वकया, जो वनम्नवि् हैं।

"24. There is another reason why
the judgment of the learned Single Judge
has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise
of judicial discipline for an order granting
or rejecting bail to record the reasons which
have weighed with the court for the
exercise of its discretionary power. In the
present case, the assessment by the High
Court is essentially contained in a single
paragraph which reads:

"4. Considering the contentions
put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner
taking
into
account
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and without
expressing opinion on the merits of the
case, this court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.

25. Merely recording "having
perused the record" and "on the facts and
circumstances of the case" does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial
order. It is a fundamental premise of open
justice, to which our judicial system is
committed,
that
factors
which
have
weighed in the mind of the judge in the
rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in
the order passed. Open justice is premised
3 All. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1219
on the notion that justice should not only be
done,
but
should
manifestly
and
undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty
of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at
the heart of this commitment. Questions of
the grant of bail concern both liberty of
individuals
undergoing
criminal
prosecution as well as the interests of the
criminal justice system in ensuring that
those who commit crimes are not afforded
the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges
are duty bound to explain the basis on
which they have arrived at a conclusion.

27. Where an order refusing or
granting bail does not furnish the reasons
that inform the decision, there is a
presumption of the non-application of mind
which may require the intervention of this
Court. Where an earlier application for bail
has been rejected, there is a higher burden
on the appellate court to furnish specific
reasons as to why bail should be granted."

7. पररवािी के ववद्वान अविवक्ता एवां ववद्वान अपर
र्शासकीय अविवक्ता का कथन है वक यद्यवप प्रथम जमानि प्राथाना
पत्र के आिेर्श में भले ही आवेिक के ववद्वान अविवक्ता द्वारा प्रस्िुि
वकये गये िकों को उद्धृि न वकया गया हो वकन्िु यह माना जायेगा
वक उन्होंने उन सभी िकों को सुनने के पिाि ही जमानि आवेिन
पत्र वनरस्ि वकया है एवां वद्विीय जमानि आवेिन पत्र को नये िथ्ज्यों
के आिार पर ही प्रस्िुि वकया जाना चावहए जबवक आवेिक की
ओर से ऐसा नहीं वकया गया है एवां प्रथम जमानि आवेिन पत्र के
िकों को ही पुनः प्रस्िुि वकया जा रहा है इसका अथा यह लगाया
जाये वक आवेिक को जमानि पर मुक्त वकये जाने के कोई नये
आिार ही नहीं है, इस सांबांि में उन्होंने न्यायालय का ध्यान माननीय
उच्चिम न्यायालय एवां इस न्यायालय की कुि नजीरों की ओर
आकृष्ट करिे हुए अनुरोि वकया वक आवेिक के इस वद्विीय जमानि
आवेिन पत्र को वनरस्ि कर विया जाये।

8. उभयपक्षों के ववद्वान अविवक्तागण द्वारा िी गई िलीलों
पर गहनिापूवाक ववचार वकया एवां माननीय उच्चिम न्यायालय एवां
इस न्यायालय की नजीरों का ववहांगम पररर्शीलन वकया। उक्त नजीरे
वनम्नवि् हैंः-

9. महाराष्र राज्य बिाम बुकद्धिोटा सुर्ा राव: 1989
सकललमेंट (2) एससीसी 605 के मामले में माननीय उच्चिम
न्यायालय द्वारा यह अविाररि वकया गया है वक यवि एक बार कोई
जमानि आवेिन खाररज कर विया गया हो िो उन्हीं आिारों पर
वद्विीय जमानि आवेिन पत्र प्रस्िुि नहीं वकया जा सकिा है। पूवा में
प्रस्िुि वकये गये िथ्ज्य-वस्थवि में कोई बिलाव वकए वबना वद्विीय
जमानि आवेिन पत्र को मांजूर करना वस्िुिः पहले के फैसले को
खाररज करने जैसा होगा, िथा यह एक ऐसा महत्वपूणा पररविान है,
वजसका पहले के वनणाय पर सीिा प्रभाव पड़िा है, न वक केवल
औपचाररक पररविान। इसे वनम्नानुसार माना 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
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
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 fact-situation. 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 despatch. 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.

10. सत्यपाल बिाम यूपी राज्य : 1998 एससीसी
ऑिलाइि ऑल 1224 : (1998) 37 एसीसी 287 के
मामले में इस न्यायालय की एकल न्यायपीठ द्वारा एक प्रश्न का
जवाब िेिे हुए वनणाय वकया था वक क्या एक नया िका जो पहले
उपलब्ि था उसे िूसरे जमानि आवेिन में आगे बढाने की अनुमवि
िी जानी चावहए या नहीं, खण्डपीठ के समक्ष प्रश्न इस प्रकार था:-
3 All. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1221

"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 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."

11. माननीय उच्चिम न्यायालय ने म.प्र. राज्य बिाम
िािाद: (2001) 7 एससीसी 673 के मामले में जोर िेिे हुए
कहा वक यद्यवप क्रवमक जमानि आवेिन स्वीकाया हैं, लेवकन बिली
हुई पररवस्थवियों में। इसे वनम्नानुसार माना 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."

12. इसके अलावा, माननीय उच्चिम न्यायालय ने
िल्याण चंर सरिार बिाम रािेश रंिि : (2005) 2
एससीसी 42 के मामले में जोर िेिे हुए कहा वक यवि िथ्ज्यों में
पररविान या कानून में कोई बिलाव होिा है जो वपिले आिेर्श को
खाररज कर िेगा िो बाि में जमानि आवेिन पत्र िायर वकया जा
सकिा है। न्यायालय ने इस िका को खाररज कर विया वक लगािार
जमानि यावचका ऐसे आिार पर िायर की जा सकिी है वजसे पहले
ही अिालिें खाररज कर चुकी हैं, इसे वनम्नानुसार माना 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
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
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

13. जहाां िक आवेिक की ववद्वान अविवक्ता द्वारा
मकहपाल (सुप्रा) के मामले में विए गए पैराग्राफ सांख्या क्रमर्शः
24, 25, 27 पर जोर िेिे हुए यह िका प्रस्िुि वकया गया है, वक
प्रथम जमानि आवेिन पत्र िय करिे समय न्यायालय द्वारा आिेर्श में
उन िकों को िजा वकया जाना चावहए, लेवकन मौजूिा मामले में, उस
पर पूवा न्यायालय द्वारा ववचार नहीं वकया गया है, इसवलए आवेिक
प्रथम जमानि आवेिन पत्र में प्रस्िुि वकये गये आिारों पर ही
जमानि पाने का हकिार है। इस सांबांि में इस न्यायालय का मानना है
वक यह न्यायालय इस मामले पर यह गौर नहीं कर सकिा है वक
पहले जमानि आवेिन पर वनणाय लेिे समय ित्समय प्रस्िुि िथ्ज्यों
को िजा वकए गए हैं या नहीं, िूसरी बाि यह है वक यवि यह
न्यायालय इसकी जाांच करिा है, िो यह वस्थवि यह होगी वक पहले
के आिेर्श की समीक्षा करना, जो वक आपराविक कानून के िहि
स्वीकाया नहीं है जैसा वक माननीय सवोच्च न्यायालय ने Hari
Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajhan Singh
Bajwa 2001 (1) SCC 169 के साथ-साथ अन्य वनणायों
में भी वनणाय विया है।

इसके अलावा, पहले जमानि आवेिन को खाररज
करने के आिेर्श को उच्चिम न्यायालय के समक्ष चुनौिी नहीं िी गई
है और यवि आवेिक इससे व्यवथि था, िो उसके द्वारा उक्त वनणाय
को उच्चिम न्यायालय के समक्ष चुनौिी िी जानी चावहए थी, लेवकन
आवेिक ने ऐसा करने के बजाय, वद्विीय जमानि आवेिन पत्र
िावखल वकया है। इस न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्िुि वद्विीय जमानि
आवेिन, वजस पर प्रथम जमानि आवेिन की अस्वीकृवि के बाि
अवभयुक्त को जमानि प्रिान करने के वलए नये आिारों पर ववचार
3 All. Roshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1223
वकया जाना है, क्योंवक वद्विीय जमानि के वलए नए आिारों की
उपलब्ििा वाांिनीय है, जो आवेिक के ववद्वान अविवक्ता द्वारा
प्रश्नगि प्रकरण में नहीं वकया गया है, इसवलए यह वद्विीय जमानि
आवेिन पत्र वनरस्ि वकये जाने योग्य है।

14. उपरोक्त के दृवष्टगि, आवेिक का यह वद्विीय जमानि
आवेिन पत्र पोर्णीय नहीं है, ििनुसार यह वद्विीय जमानि आवेिन
पत्र वनरस्ि वकया जािा है।
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1223
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 34031 of 2023

Roshan Singh ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Shiv Babu Dubey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Bail Application -
Impersonation in Competitive Examination -
Societal Impact - Need for Stringent Measures

The applicant, Roshan Singh, sought bail in
Case Crime No. 531 of 2023 under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, for allegedly
impersonating Ranjan Gupta during a Village
Development
Officer
re-examination
on
26.06.2023. The FIR, lodged by the Principal of
Arya Kanya Inter College, St.d that the
applicant's photograph and biometric fingerprint
did not match the admit card, leading to his
identification as an imposter. The applicant
argued false implication, a one-day delay in FIR,
discrepancy in arrest date (29.06.2023), the
offense being triable by a Magistrate, and parity
with others granted bail in similar cases. The
prosecution countered that the applicant was
caught impersonating, undermining meritorious
students' rights, and the parity claim was
inapplicable due to different case circumstances.
Held: The court rejected the bail application,
emphasizing the grave societal impact of
examination fraud, which jeopardizes deserving
students' futures and erodes meritocracy. The
court
urged
the
St.
Government
and
Examination Conducting Agencies to implement
stringent measures to curb such malpractices
and directed communication of the order to the
Principal Secretary (Law) and Advocate General
for
policy
formulation.
The
applicant's
involvement, the offense's severity, and the
need to deter such acts justified the denial of
bail.

Case Law Cited:

1. Saurabh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. and Anr.,
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35731 of
2023, decided on 23.08.2023 (All. HC) (cited by
applicant, distinguished by court)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned
counsel for the applicant today in the
Court, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Shiv Babu Dubey,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. K.P.
Pathak, learned counsel for the State and
perused the material on record.

3. The instant bail application has
been filed on behalf of the applicant,
Roshan Singh with a prayer to release him
on bail in Case Crime No. 531 of 2023,
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Kotwali
Nagar,
District-Banda, during pendency of trial.