AJAY RAJARAM HINGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail under Sec. 439 of the code of criminal procedure that has come before me after an earlier bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate judge of this Court (Coram: Bharti Dangre, J.).

(2.) A principle of law has become settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that a subsequent bail application should invariably be placed before the same learned Judge of the High Court, if available, who has heard and disposed of the earlier application. [See. Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 684; State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605; Harjeet Singh @ Seeta Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 649; M. Jagan Mohan Rao Vs. P.V. Mohan Rao and Anr. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 491; Jagmohan Bahl and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 501; M/s Gati Limited Vs. T. Nagarajan Pirmiajee & Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal No.870 of 2019; Menino Lopes Vs. State of Goa reported in 1994 Mh.L.J 1803; Digambar 0Manohar Satam Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 SCC Online Bom 1154.]

(3.) Though there is no paucity of precedents covering the principle directly as the principle appears to have been settled as a result of a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that a subsequent bail application should invariably be placed before the same learned Judge of the High Court, if available, who has heard and disposed of the earlier application, however, administrative order passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court on 18/6/2019, directing subsequent bail application to be placed before the Roster Bench when the application pleads change in circumstance, necessitates decision on the course to be followed by by accused who files second or successive bail application.