The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Public Prosecutor to have an opportunity to file written objection before granting bail to a convict sentenced to imprisonment for life, as per the proviso to Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., and the limitations on the power of a Single Vacation Judge to pass final bail orders, as provided in Rule 4 of Chapter II of the High Court Rules.

RAKESH KUMAR, J.

1. In the present appeal, after the appellant was released on bail, an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 2225 of 2018 was filed on behalf of the informant, with a prayer to modify/set-aside the earlier order dated 30-05-2018 passed by a Single Vacation Judge, whereby the appellant was directed to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal and there was order for suspension of sentence in a trial in which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The interlocutory application was filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). After filing of the interlocutory application, the matter was listed under the heading "For Orders" on 16-08-2018, however Sri Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, who had received interlocutory application, raised objection on the point of maintainability of the present interlocutory application and on his prayer, the appeal was adjourned. On 30-08-2018 also, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the appellant for filing reply to the interlocutory application and on 13-09-2018, again on same request, the appeal was adjourned. Thereafter, on behalf of the appellant, reply has been filed on 13th September, 2018.

2. Sri Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, has raised objection on the point of maintainability of the present interlocutory application on the plea that interlocutory application, filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. By way of referring to 3rd proviso to Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., Sri Jha has argued that in such cases, only Public Prosecutor can file an application for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, he submits that the present interlocutory application is fit to be rejected, since it has not been filed by Public Prosecutor, rather it has been filed on behalf of the informant.

3. Sri Jha, has further argued that in view of the Chapter II Rule 4 of Patna High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court Rules"), a Single Vacation Judge is fully entitled to pass order of interim bail during pendency of the appeal. The present appeal was filed during Annual Summer Vacation of 2018 and Hon'ble Single Judge, while admitting the appeal and summoning lower court record, has passed order for suspending sentence and granting bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Sri Jha has argued that Hon'ble Vacation (Single) Judge was well-competent to pass interim order, as per provisions of High Court Rules. He further submits that in view of Annexure - C to the reply filed by the appellant, the Hon'ble Single Judge was well authorised by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to hear the appeal during the vacation. According to Sri Jha, if the Vacation Court has already granted bail, there is no provision for its confirmation by Division Bench. It has also been argued that even if, there is any error in the order whereby appellant was granted bail, as per judicial discipline, the same Bench is entitled to review or recall its order and that may not be considered by another Bench. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (M/S. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors, 2018 9 Scale.) and he has specifically referred to paragraph - 38 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below:

"38. A perusal of the above judgment leaves no manner of doubt that this Court has held that in terms of Order XLVII Rule 5 of CPC, a review should normally be heard by the same Bench which passed the original order. We may reiterate the reasons given by this Court. These are:-

(1) The judges who heard the matter originally have applied their mind and would know best the facts and legal position;

(2) They will be in the best position to appreciate the