9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his first bail application, which was filed after undergoing two years of custody, has been rejected, it would be open for that person to come after a year or after a substantial period of further custody has been undergone by him and the Courts could well grant the concession of bail to the accused on the ground of period of custody undergone . It becomes apparent that the petitioner is the main accused, who had initially pressurized and harassed the complainant and after the preparation of the forged affidavit, had submitted the same to the police and thus, does not deserve the grant of concession of anticipatory bail and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary in order to complete the chain of events comprising the commission of the alleged offences. Thus, even on merits, the present second petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. The first anticipatory bail petition of the present petitioner came up for hearing on 21.01.2022 and on the said date, the said interim order dated 20.12.2021 had already been passed in favour of the co-accused Roshan Lal and the same was in the knowledge of the counsel for the petitioner, appearing in the first anticipatory bai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five days from the date of filing of the said application. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. In case, after surrendering before the police within a period of 10 days from today, the petitioner files an application for grant of regular bail, the trial Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five days from the date of filing of the said application. 21.01.2022 Pawan (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE Perusal of the above order would show that when the first anticipatory bail petition came up for hearing before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, had sought permission to withdraw the said petition and had also made a statement that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the police within a period of 10 days from the date of the passing of the order dated 21.01.2022. Since this Court, after hearing the abovesaid first anticipatory bail petition, was not inclined to grant the same, thus, learned counsel for the petitioner had made the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused on the ground of period of custody undergone . In the subsequent regular bail applications, there could be several factors in addition to long incarceration, which could be raised for instance, it could also be shown that there was a delay in the trial or that some material witness has demolished the case of the prosecution, which would come within the meaning of changed circumstances, so as to grant the relief to the accused therein. Similar would be the position in the case of suspension of sentence. However, the case of anticipatory bail cannot be treated to be on the same pedestal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited any judgment to even remotely show as to how the present second anticipatory bail petition would be maintainable, moreso, when the petitioner has not complied with the undertaking/statement which was made on his behalf during the hearing of the first anticipatory bail petition and thus, the present second petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. This Court has also considered the case of the petitioner on merits. A perusal of the FIR would show that the present petitioner is stated to be the main accused, who in the year 2019 had to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.01.2022 (P-2), vide which the anticipatory bail application of present petitioner was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, would show that the said forged affidavit was handed over to the police in FIR No.68 dated 04.02.2020 by the present petitioner Bhunesh. The said fact has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner. Further the perusal of the FIR, as well as keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, it becomes apparent that the petitioner is the main accused, who had initially pressurized and harassed the complainant and after the preparation of the forged affidavit, had submitted the same to the police and thus, does not deserve the grant of concession of anticipatory bail and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary in order to complete the chain of events comprising the commission of the alleged offences. Thus, even on merits, the present second petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. Before parting with the present order, it would also be relevant to note that although, no argument in this regard has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but an order dated 01.02.2022, passed by this Court granting bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
