Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Surya Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Surya Narayan Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039757

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surya Narayan Singh

Advocate Shri. S.C.Yadav

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 m. cr.c.no.1805/13. 19.6.2013. shri s.c.yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. shri lalit joglekar, learned p.l.for the respondents/ state. heard on the question of admission. petitioner has preferred this 4th repeat petition under section 438 of cr.p.c. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of crime no.40/10, registered at p.s.prathivipur district tikamgarh for the offence of section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 294 and 506-b of ipc against him and other co-accused. having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments on admission on perusing the record, i have found that firs.application of the applicant under the same provision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.8.2010, while his second application in this regard was dismissed on merits vide order dated 21.10.2011 and thereafter again this court was approached by the applicant under the same provision and such application was dismissed, taking into consideration the earlier orders.vide dated 29.9.2012 and thereafter, this is 4th petition for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner. i am of the considered view that after taking into consideration the circumstances available in the case diary, if once anticipatory bail petition has been dismissed on merits and thereafter there is no change in the circumstance or in the case diary then subsequent specially 4th repeat petition for anticipatory bail could not be entertained. it is apparent that aforesaid application was dismissed 2 on merits and there is no material change either in the circumstance or in the case diary. consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing on admission. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 M.

Cr.C.No.1805/13.

19.6.2013.

Shri S.C.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents/ State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Petitioner has preferred this 4th repeat petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.40/10, registered at P.S.Prathivipur District Tikamgarh for the offence of Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC against him and other co-accused.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments on admission on perusing the record, I have found that fiRs.application of the applicant under the same provision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.8.2010, while his second application in this regard was dismissed on merits vide order dated 21.10.2011 and thereafter again this Court was approached by the applicant under the same provision and such application was dismissed, taking into consideration the earlier ordeRs.vide dated 29.9.2012 and thereafter, this is 4th petition for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner.

I am of the considered view that after taking into consideration the circumstances available in the case diary, if once anticipatory bail petition has been dismissed on merits and thereafter there is no change in the circumstance or in the case diary then subsequent specially 4th repeat petition for anticipatory bail could not be entertained.

It is apparent that aforesaid application was dismissed 2 on merits and there is no material change either in the circumstance or in the case diary.

Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing on admission.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial