CRM No. M 33167 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 33167 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Sanjay Kumar and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a second application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 11 dated 13.04.2010 under section 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (Subsequently section 326/307 IPC has been added), registered at Police Station Bahav Wala, District Ferozepur. The earlier bail application of petitioner No. 1 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2010 with the following observations that:- “It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is involved in another FIR No. 63 dated 30.06.2010, registered under Sections 447, 506, 511, 427 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bahav Wala, District Ferozepur and the same was registered after the registration of the present FIR. Accordingly, it appears that the said FIR were registered after the CRM No. M 33167 of 2010 2 concession of interim bail by the trial Court. The petitioner has misused the concession of bail. Moreover, the offences alleged in the present petition are serious. No ground for concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.” Whereas, the bail application of petitioners No. 2 (Mangat Ram) and petitioner No. 3 (Vijay Kumar) was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2010 by observing as under:- “As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner-Mangat Ram is alleged to have put a rope around the neck with intention to kill the complainant. Moreover, Vijay Kumar is stated to have given a kirpan blow. No ground for concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.” Now, the second bail application has been filed on the ground that the statements or the facts brought before this Court while dismissing the aforesaid bail application of Sanjay Kumar were incorrect in as much as the FIR against Sanjay Kumar was wrongly registered and that it was registered on account of the influence of the local MLA. It is further stated that the complainant in FIR No. 63 is one Surja Ram and he had no right, title or lien over the land in question. Whereas, the Assistant Collector (Jr. Division) Sitoguno, vide order dated 16.10.2008 held that the possession of the property vested with petitioner No. 1 and FIR No. 63 dated 30.06.2010, under Sections 447, 506, 511, 427 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bahav Wala, District Ferozepur was registered only to scuttle the release of the petitioners. CRM No. M 33167 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners is heard. The present application is a second bail application seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Although, no res judicata would apply while filing second bail application, however, the test for filing second bail application and that also anticipatory bail is definitely more stringent. There is no fresh ground. It cannot be said that petitioner-Sanjay Kumar was not aware of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector (Jr. Division) Sitoguno holding him to be in exclusive possession. Even if, the same is taken into consideration, it is neither a wrong averment nor incorrect fact that FIR No. 63 was indeed registered against petitioner No. 1-Sanjay on 30.06.2010 and on this date, he was on interim bail granted by the Court of Sessions. The petitioners have been evading their arrest and in stead of surrendering, they have filed the present petition on a totally misconceived ground. Moreover, the bail applications of petitioners No. 2 and No. 3, in any case, was dismissed by this Court taking into account the seriousness of allegation that Mangat Ram - petitioner No. 2 had put a rope around the neck with intention to kill the complainant and petitioner No. 3 - Vijay Kumar gave a kirpan blow inviting offence under section 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation being serious, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be extended. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 15, 2010 mohan