Anticipatory Bail Application No.933 of 2013

29th August, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A.R. PANDE, Mr. ANAND A. PANDE
Respondent Counsel: Mr.V.B. KONDE DESHMUKH
Other Counsel: Mr. RIZWAN MERCHANT

Cases Cited:
Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, 1987 AIR 1613 [Para 5,7]
Menino Lopes Vs. State of Goa, 1995 (3) Cr 386 [Para 6,7]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This case was circulated for urgent orders as regards grant of Anticipatory bail.

2. It is noticed that this is a second Application for Anticipatory Bail. In earlier round the Application for Anticipatory Bail was rejected by this Court (Coram: Smt R.P.SondurBaldota, J), by order dated 6th August, 2013.

3. It is not in dispute that the same Honourable Judge is available at Mumbai with some other assignments.

4. In this background learned Advocate Mr.A.R.Pande expects and pursues me to take present Application for hearing on the ground that as per present Roaster it would be liable to be heard by me.

5. In view of the case of SHAHZAD HASAN KHAN Vs ISHTIAQ HASAN KHAN reported in 1987 AIR 1613, whenever an Application for Bail is heard by a particular Honourable Judge, propriety demands that a subsequent Application should be listed before the same Honourable Judge.

6. Mr.Pande, learned Advocate for the Applicant has cited the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MENINO LOPES Vs. STATE OF GOA reported in 1995 (3) Cr 386. Mr.Pande learned Advocate has submitted that though he has no difficulty in going before same Honourable Judge, since as per Roaster present Application would lie before this Court (A.H.Joshi,) he considers it to be improper to move Honourable Chief Justice with a prayer to refer this Application to any other Honourable Judge.

7. This Court has perused the Judgment in case of MENONO LOPES Vs. STATE OF GOA (supra). It is seen that the Division Bench of this Court does not in any manner lay down a judicial dictum that successive Applications must be taken up by the Hon'ble Judge to whom the case would come up in accordance with the Roaster irrespective of the observations contained in SHAHZAD HASAN CASE (supra).

8. In my humble view, what the Division Bench of this Court has indicated/laid down is that, considering the aspects of liberty of citizens, if a Judge to whom the case is assigned takes up the matter, it would be permissible particularly in the background that this Court has two seats and two benches and the possibility that the Judge who has decided the applications for bail in earlier round may not be available, on each subsequent occasion of successive applications.

9. Now the question before me is of propriety than bare permissibility.

10. I had made enquiry with Registry to ascertain about standing directions of Honourable Chief Justice in vogue. Registry has brought to my notice the standing order passed on 29.2.2008. Text of said Order reads as follows :

“ STANDING ORDER

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct as under :

The second and successive bail application by a particular accused/applicant be placed before the same Judge, who had entertained/ rejected the first/earlier bail application filed by the same accused, where the Hon’ble Judge holding the regular assignment directs the matter to be so placed before the Judge, who had entertained/rejected the earlier bail application.

High Court, Appellate Side,

Date: 29th February, 2008By Order,

S/d

(C.V.Bhadang)

Registrar (Judl-I)”

11. Therefore, it would be not only simply appropriate but even necessary that the each subsequent Application be listed before the same Honourable Judge of this Court, who had decided the Application earlier, particularly when the same Honourable Judge is available and is having sitting at Mumbai.

12. Thus, in view of Standing Order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, the learned Advocate for the Applicant is free to circulate this Application before same Honourable Judge.

13. Considering that by virtue of ad-interim protection granted by this Court in the earlier round of Anticipatory Bail Application No.838 of 2013, the interim order granted by the Sessions Court was continued, and now this Court directs that the interim protection as in operation continues to operate for 15 days from today.

14. All concerned are directed to act upon an authenticated copy of this order attested by the Court Sheristedar.

Ordered accordingly.