JAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a fourth bail application by the accused, Jal Singh convicted under Sec. 302 Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200.00 or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The earlier three bail applications were rejected on Oct. 22, 1980, Dec. 7, 1981 and Nov. 20, 1982. Though we were not sitting in regular Division Bench for hearing such bail applications, but the office has listed this tail application before us as the last bail application was rejected by us on Nov. 20, 1982. Each of us was sitting in a Single Bench today, but this Division Bench was constituted during lunch interval as the office considered it necessary to place this bail application for consideration before the same Bench which had earlier rejected the bail application. The office has placed reliance on an order of G. M. Lodha and G. K. Sharma JL., dated April 7, 1983 in D. B. Criminal Second Bail Application No. 235/83 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 175/82.

(2.) Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no considered decision has been taken by any Bench of this Court on the interpretation of Rule 65 of Rajasthan High Court Rules and learned Members of the Bar are experiencing a great difficulty in placing a fresh bail application before the same learned. JL. who constituted (he earlier Bench at the time of rejecting the earlier bail application. We have perused the order of G.M. Lodha and G. K. Sharma JL., dated April 7, 1983, cited above and an order of Lodha and Bhargava JJ. reported in Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1983 p. 222 and we are of the opinion that in both the aforesaid orders no reasons have been given while interpreting the provisions of Rule 65 and merely it has been observed that the subsequent bail application should be listed before the same Bench as provided under Rule 65 and the office has been directed to follow the above rule and to take appropriate steps to ensure its compliance in future.

(3.) Both, Mr. Tibrewal and the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that it was never the intention of Rule 65 that even if a fresh bail application was submitted under changed circumstances or on the happening of subsequent events, it was necessary to list such a bail application before the same learned Judges who had rejected the earlier bail application. It is also argued that in practice it is creating great hardship as it does not lie in the hands of the petitioner to constitute a Bench of the same learned Judges and many a time, the fresh bail applications are not put before the court for days together as the Bench of same learned Judge is not constituted. If the learned Judges are sitting in Single Bench there is no alternative except to constitute their Bench during lunch hours. It becomes difficult to make submissions during lunch hours due to paucity of time and all this procedure results into a denies of Justice to a petitioner whose bail application should be heard immediately. It is further submitted that in a particular matter, regular Bench, hearing criminal matters if felt necessary, may give a direction in that particular case to list the fresh bail application before the same Bench which had rejected the earlier bail application. However, this rule should not be adopted as matter of routine, even in cases where fresh bail application is filed on happening of subsequent events or change of circumstances.