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.

Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of M.P.

Rameshwar Singh vs State of M.P.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/500755

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
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Misc. Criminal Case No. 6146/2001
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application dismissed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 154 and 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rameshwar Singh

Advocate R.N. Rai, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate A.K. Das, Panel Lawyer

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 154 and 439
Reported In
2002(1)MPHT539

Excerpt

- n.s. azad, j.1. heard on admission.2. aperusal of order dated 16-8-2001 passed in m.cr.c. no. 3354/2000 by this court, reveals that the first application for anticipatory bail which was moved on behalf of this petitioner and registered as m.cr.c. no. 6861/98 was disallowed and rejected by this court, and on the ground of suppression of this fact at the time of moving the second application for anticipatory bail, which was registered as m.cr.c. no. 3354/2000, the subsequent bail application was also rejected with a direction that after surrender, or arrest the petition moved under section 439 of the cr.pc on behalf of the petitioner, shall be heard on the same day or atleast by next day, without being influenced of the order of rejection of earlier bail application.3. now it is submitted by shri rai that the first information report, which is now marked as annexure 'c', was not considered or brought to the notice of the court, at the time of consideration of first application, hence, this bail application be treated as first bail application.4. it is not disputed that at the time of rejection of the first bail application which was registered as m.cr.c. no. 6861/98, the case diary was available. the non-mention of consideration of first information report, in bail order, does not mean that it was neither considered nor brought to the notice of the court, hence this third application for bail, without there being any change in the circumstances, is not maintainable which is rejected at the stage of admission.

Full Judgment

N.S. Azad, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. Aperusal of order dated 16-8-2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3354/2000 by this Court, reveals that the first application for anticipatory bail which was moved on behalf of this petitioner and registered as M.Cr.C. No. 6861/98 was disallowed and rejected by this Court, and on the ground of suppression of this fact at the time of moving the second application for anticipatory bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 3354/2000, the subsequent bail application was also rejected with a direction that after surrender, or arrest the petition moved under Section 439 of the Cr.PC on behalf of the petitioner, shall be heard on the same day or atleast by next day, without being influenced of the order of rejection of earlier bail application.

3. Now it is submitted by Shri Rai that the first information report, which is now marked as Annexure 'C', was not considered or brought to the notice of the Court, at the time of consideration of first application, hence, this bail application be treated as first bail application.

4. It is not disputed that at the time of rejection of the first bail application which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 6861/98, the case diary was available. The non-mention of consideration of first information report, in bail order, does not mean that it was neither considered nor brought to the notice of the Court, hence this third application for bail, without there being any change in the circumstances, is not maintainable which is rejected at the stage of admission.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial