ORAL ORDER :

I.A. No.1 of 2019 By way of the instant interlocutory application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant no.1 Bhola Choubey has prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.

2. He has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years.

3. He had moved earlier for bail under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court, which was considered and rejected vide order dated 27.01.2017 by another Hon’ble Judge, who is available.

4. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that registry is repeatedly placing before me records of such appeals in which prayer for bail of the appellant(s) made under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected earlier by another Hon’ble Judge, who is available.

5. The long standing convention and judicial discipline requires that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Hon’ble Judge, who had considered the first bail application, unless the Hon’ble Judge, who decided the earlier application is not available. The convention has got roots in principle which prevents abuse of the process of the court. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders which would affect the credibility of the court and the confidence of the litigant. Such practice would also cause wastage of court’s precious time.

6. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, [(1987) 2 SCC 684], the Supreme Court observed:-

“….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 pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there 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. ...”

7. In State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, [1989 Supp (2) SCC 605] while placing reliance upon Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra), the Supreme Court observed:-

“…. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the court's time as a judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency. ...”

.

8. In Vikramjit Singh v. State of M.P., [1992 Supp (3) SCC 62], the Supreme Court observed:-

“…. Otherwise a party aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the