BHASKAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    [2011] 9 S.C.R. 875


                     BHASKAR MISHRA                                  A
                               v.
             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     (Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 5568 of 2011)
                      AUGUST 8, 2011
                                                                     B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Bail - Repeated applications - Gross misuse of the
process of the Court - Case registered u/s.307 /PC -
Accused filed application for anticipatory bail uls.438 Cr.P. C.     C
before the Court of Sessions which was dismissed - High
Court however granted anticipatory bail to the accused for a
period of four weeks and also directed him to apply for regular
bail in the meanwhile - Accused filed application in the Court
of Sessions uls.439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail -              D
Application dismissed - Accused again moved the High
Court praying that the period of four weeks granted by the High
Court for moving an application for regular bail be extended
- High Court extended the time - Accused filed another
application in the High Court u/s.438 rlw ss.439 and 482 of          E
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail - Application dismissed by
the High Court on the ground that the accused was not in
custody - Accused filed yet another application for further
extending the period of four weeks which too was dismissed
- Accused thereupon filed SLP which was dismissed -                  F
Accused filed yet another application u/s. 438 CrPC before
High Court - Application dismissed - Instant SLP against the
said order - Held: The accused-petitioner had been
absconding and though he was shown great indulgence by
the Sessions as we// as the High Court on several occasions,
 the directions issued by the courts were relentlessly flouted -     G
 The repeated applications were a gross misuse of the process
 of the court - SLP dismissed with direction that no further
application for bail anticipatory or otherwise will be entertained
                               875                                   H
     876      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [20111 9 S.C.R.

A by any Court until and unless the accused-petitioner
  deposited a sum of Rupees One Lac before the Court of
  Sessions as a pre-condition for the consideration of any bail
  application that he may choose to file - Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 - ss.438 and 439.
B
       Siddharam Satlingapppa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
  and Others, 2011 (1) SCC 694: 2010 (15) SCR 201 -
  referred to.
           Case Law Reference:
c          2010 (15 ) SCR 201         referred to         Para 3
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.) No.
    5568 of 2011.

o       From the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2011 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in M. Cr. C. No.
    2171 of 2011.
         Vikas Upadhyay, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Petitioner.

E        The following order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER
        1. This Special Leave Petition is an example of the gross      •
    misuse of the process of the Court. The facts are as under:
F
       2.A case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was
  registered against the petitioner in Police Station MIG, Indore,
  Madhya Pradesh. Apprehending his arrest, he filed an
  application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
G on the 3rd of September 201 O before the Court of Sessions
  which was dismissed on the 7th September 2010. The
  petitioner thereupon filed a similar application before the
  Madhya Pradesh High Court and on the 24th September 2010
  the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a
H


                                                                       -
      BHASKAR MISHRA v. STATE OF MADHYA                         877
                  PRADESH

period of four weeks and also directed him to apply for regular          A
bail in the meanwhile. The petitioner accordingly filed an
application dated 5th of October 2010 in the Court of Sessions,
 Indore under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular
 baii. The matter was listed on seven different dates between
 the 5th of October 2010 and the 1st of November 2010 and                B
 except for one date (i.e. the 20th October 2010) the petitioner
 remained absent during the hearing of the bail application
 pleading sickness. The Sessions Judge finally dismissed the
 application on the 1st of November 2010. The petitioner agairi
 moved the High Court on the 26th October 2010 praying-that              c
 the period of four weeks granted by the High Court for moving
 an application for regular bail be extended. The High Court vide
  its order dated 26th October 2010 extended the time up till 12th
'November 2010. The petitioner instead of surrendering before
  the Sessions Court filed another application dated 8th                 D
  November 2010 in the High Court under Section 438 read with
  Sections 439 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular
  bail. This application was dismissed by the High Court on the
  12th of November 2010, by observing that an application under
  Section 439 would lie only if an accused was in custody. Still
  undeterred, the petitioner filed yet another application for further   E
  extending the period of fo~r weeks which too was dismissed
  on the 16th of December 2Q10. The petitioner thereupon filed
  SLP (CRL) No. 849-850 of 4011 impugning the orders dated
  12th November, 2010 and 1'6th December, 2010 which was
  dismissed by this Court on the 1st of February 2011. After the         F
  dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner filed yet another application
  under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the
  High Court on the plea that the judgment of this Court in
   Siddharam Satlingapppa Mhetre Versus State of
   Maharashtra and Others [2011 (1) SCC 694) had not earlier             G
   been brought to the notice of the High Court or the Supreme
   Court. This application "too has been dismissed by the
   impugned order dated 29th April, 2011 observing that the cited
  judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case as four
  earlier applications for anticipatory bail had been rejected. This     H
     878     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011J 9 S.C.R.

A order has now been impugned before us.

         3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
   gone through the record. The facts reproduced above show that
   the petitioner has been absconding and though he has been
8 shown great indulgence by the Sessions as well as the High           ..
   Court on several occasions, the directions issued by the courts
   have been relentlessly flouted. We are, therefore, of the opinion
   that the repeated applications are a gross misuse of the
   process of the court and the matter has to be dealt with in that
   background. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave
C Petition and direct that no further application for bail
  anticipatory or otherwise will be entertained by any Court until
  and unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees One Lac
  before the Court of Sessions at Indore as a pre condition for
  the consideration of any bail application that he may choose         ~
D to file. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of
  the Madhya Pradesh High Court as also to the Sessions Judge
  who is seized of the matter.
        4. The Special Leave Petition is dismiss.ed accordingly.
E
    B.B.B.                     Special Leave Petition dismissed.