Recently,in the judgement of M/S Gati Ltd. V/s T. Nagrajan Piramiajee & Anr[i] Hon’ble Supreme Court again observed that successive bail applications should be placed before the same judge who entertained the first bail application unless the judge is not available.
The brief facts of the present case states that the FIR was registered accused against the accused u/s 420, 467,468, and 472 of Indian Penal Code. The accused filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the same was rejected. Thereafter, Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court by dismissing the S.L.P filed by accused against the order of High Court.
Subsequently, after the period of 13 days,accused succeeded in another anticipatory bail application which was filed before Hon’ble High Court and that too without any change in circumstances and also it was entertained by another judge, though the judge who earlier heard the application was available.
Later, in the appeal filed before the Apex Court, the bench comprising of Justice N.V Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar referred the following Judgments:
1. 1) Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan - (1987) 2 SCC 684.
2. 2) State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao-1989 Supp (2) SCC 605.
3. 3) Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh- 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62.
4. 4) M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao -(2010) 15 SCC 491.
5. 5) Jagmohan Bahl and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another - (2014) 16 SCC 501.
Referring abovementioned judgments, reiterated cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available.The Court held that :
6" it is clear that the well settled principle of law enunciated in the decisions cited supra has not been followed,inasmuch as the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by a different Judge in spite of the availability of the Judge who had disposed of the first application.''
[i]Criminal Appeal No. 870/2019