MUNNIDEVI Vs. SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Munnidevi with Shri Pratap Singh. Advocate. Accused Kallu Pathak's counsel Shri A. K. Bora. C. S. Dixit. Dy. Government Advocate is in attendance to assist the Court. They are heard.

(2.) ADMITEDLY Kallu Pathak has surrendered to his bail. Admittedly Shashi Sharma is in jail. Arguments on charge have been heard and orders have been reserved by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. Learned counsel appearing before me say that they have no grievance if the trial proceeds before the Judge in question. Now apparently everything is all right. The things are now running satisfactorily even from the present applicant's point of view. I have seen the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior and also the copy of the order-sheet of the Sessions Case.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior would be well to insist that every bail application discloses on its face whether the application is the first application or the second application or the third application etc. and in every case the applicant be directed to furnish the name of the Judge who may have rejected the earlier bail application, no matter whether under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. If these particulars are not given in the first instance, the Judge should insist that particulars be given and then only a notice be issued to the District Magistrate or the Government Pleader, as the case may be. This is the only step which can prevent the hearing of a bail application by a Judge other than the Judge who had rejected it.