Omnath Deorao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 13728 Bom

                                  {1}               BA 948 OF 2021


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 915 BAIL APPLICATION NO.948 OF 2021

                       OMNATH DEORAO GAIKWAD
                                  VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    ...
               Advocate for Applicant : Shri Mayur V. Salunke
                  APP for Respondent : Shri A.A.Jagatkar
                                    ...
                                 CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

                               DATE:      23rd September, 2021

 PER COURT:-

1. Shri A.A.Jagatkar, learned APP for the State raised

preliminary objection that the applicant had earlier made an

application and it was rejected. He submitted that the order

dated 29th June, 2020 shows that the application was

rejected after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant

for some time as the Court was not inclined to grant any

relief to the applicant. Shri M.V.Salunke, learned counsel for

the applicant submitted that the application was not

disposed of on merits. Learned APP states that the order

clearly shows that the learned counsel for the applicant was

heard for some time and then application was rejected.

{2} BA 948 OF 2021

2. Shri Jagatkar, learned APP placed reliance on the case

of Gati Limited V/s. T. Nagarajan Piramiajee and Anr.; 2019

DGLS (SC) 730 for the proposition that if earlier bail

application is heard by a Judge and if he is available it

should be placed before the same Court. Following

observations are made in the afore-quoted judgment:

"5. Another aspect of the matter deserves to be noted. The first application for anticipatory bail was rejected by a certain learned Judge, but the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by another learned Judge, though the Judge who had heard the first application was available. This Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684, in a similar matter concerning filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, made the following observations: "5... The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestring every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the creditability of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there

{3} BA 948 OF 2021

would be wastage of courts time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders..."

3. On perusal of the order of this Court (Coram: V.K.

Jadhav, J.) dated 29th June, 2020, it appears that the learned

counsel for the applicant was heard for some time and then

the application was rejected as the Court was not inclined to

grant any relief to the applicant. Having regard to this and

in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the

matter is to be placed before the same Court which dealt

with the application i.e. Bail Application No.361 of 2020.

Having regard to this, Registry to take appropriate steps for

listing the matter before the same Court (Coram: V.K.

Jadhav, J.)

4. Remove from Board.

( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE SPT