MCRC/53205/2020 of AGASTI DABHADE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)M.Cr.C. No. 53205 of 2020

(Agasti Dabhade V/s. State of M.P.)

Date : 31.12.2020:

Heard through video conferencing.

Applicant by Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate.

Respondent/State by Shri Zeeshan Khan, Panel Advocate.

The applicant has filed M.Cr.C. No.52933/2020 on22.12.2020 through Advocate Shri Amit Bhatia. Thereafter, he has filedanother M.Cr.C. No.53205/2020 i.e. the present M.Cr.C. through ShriAshish Gupta, Advocate. In the later bail application all the documents,list of documents, etc. signed by Shri Amit Bhatia, Advocate have beenfiled. In the same application, photocopy of the Vakalatnama has alsobeen used which had already been filed in earlier M.Cr.C.No.52933/2020. It means that one Vakalatnama sent by the JailSuperintendent has been used in filing both the M.Cr.Cs. and the officewithout examining this fact has registered this bail application. Duringpendency of first application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.52933/2020, secondapplication i.e. M.Cr.C. No.53205/2020 ought not to have been filed.Now, in first bail application (M.Cr.C. No.52933/2020) no one isappearing since last two dates.

Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel, submits that Shri AmitBhatia, Advocate has issued the NOC in his favour, but no such NOC isavailable in the Vakalatnama filed in this M.Cr.C. The Vakalatnama inboth the M.Cr.Cs is common, issued by the Jail Superintendent on28.11.2020, therefore, this second application (M.Cr.C. No.53205/2020) isnot maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed as such. Shri AshishGupta is directed to be more careful in future while filing the bailapplications.

Alok/-

( VIVEK RUSIA )

V. JUDGE

Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2021.01.02 15:32:10 +05'30'