ORDER :

1. This is an application for bail under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure that has come before me after an earlier bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate judge of this Court (Coram: Bharti Dangre, J.).

2. A principle of law has become settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that a subsequent bail application should invariably be placed before the same learned Judge of the High Court, if available, who has heard and disposed of the earlier application. [See: Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 684, State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 605, Harjeet Singh @ Seeta vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2002) 1 SCC 649, M. Jagan Mohan Rao vs. P.V. Mohan Rao and Another, (2010) 15 SCC 491, Jagmohan Bahl and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 501, M/s Gati Limited vs. T. Nagarajan Pirmiajee and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2019, Menino Lopes vs. State of Goa, 1994 Mh. L.J 1803, Digambar Manohar Satam vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1154].

3. Though there is no paucity of precedents covering the principle directly as the principle appears to have been settled as a result of a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that a subsequent bail application should invariably be placed before the same learned Judge of the High Court, if available, who has heard and disposed of the earlier application, however, administrative order passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court on 18th June 2019, directing subsequent bail application to be placed before the Roster Bench when the application pleads change in circumstance, necessitates decision on the course to be followed by accused who files second or successive bail application.

4. The Chief Justice of the High Court has the constitutional power to determine which Judge in each case is to sit alone and which Judges of the Court, whether with or without the Chief Justice, are to constitute the Division Bench. The power of assignment of judicial business amongst the Judges of the High Court, whether sitting singly or in Division Bench, is entrusted by law to the Chief Justice. The Judge derives power to deal with and decide the cases or class of cases assigned to him by virtue of the assignment of work made by the Chief Justice.

5. Accordingly, the then Chief Justice on 18th June 2019, considering orders dated 10th June 2019 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2209 of 2018 and order dated 12th June 2019 passed in Criminal Application (BA) No. 365 2019, both referring to the judgment in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 684, passed an administrative order, Para 3 and 4 of the said order reads as under:

“3. The said decision holds that successive applications seeking bail or anticipatory bail without any new factor or circumstance having cropped up should be placed before the bench which dealt with the earlier application because if permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge. Meaning thereby if the second bail application does not plead a new factor or circumstance having cropped up, only then would it be required to be placed before the bench which had disposed of the earlier bail application. But, if a change in circumstances or a new factor having cropped up is pleaded, the application can be considered by the Judge to whom the Roster is assigned.

4. The bail applications accordingly be placed before the Roster Bench, and the Roster Bench would consider whether the application placed before it pleads a change in circumstances or a new factor having cropped up. If it is so pleaded in the application, the learned Judge shall decide the same and if no such pleading is made. By judicial order, it could be directed that the application be placed before the Judge who had dealt with the previous b