SANJAY TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vishal Dhagat, J, 1.In case of Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) 2 SCC 684 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao 1988 Supp (2) 605, Apex Court has held that judicial discipline required that such matters must be placed before the same Judge if he is available for orders.

(2.) As per High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 Chapter IV, Rule 15, subsequent bail applications under Ss. 389(1), 438 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure shall be listed before the same Bench which has decided the first bail application even if earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution or dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn. Said rule has not taken care of the fact that if Judge who heard earlier bail application was not available, in such cases matter can be heard by another Judge.

(3.) This is repeat (third) bail application filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant, who is in jail since 2/4/2022 in connection with Crime No.142/2022, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rewa (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Ss. 342, 506, 323, 328, 376-D, 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. During investigation offences under Ss. 376-D read with Ss. 109, 212, 366-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 5/6, 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was enhanced. Earlier applications i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 20278/2022 was dismissed on merits on 2/5/2022 and M.Cr.C. No. 27163/2022 has been dismissed having been rendered as infructuous.