ORDER

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. –

I. A. No. 6 of 2019

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State via video conferencing.

2. By way of the instant interlocutory application preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, who has been convicted inter alia under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. Similar prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected thrice by this Court on merit.

4. One of the members of the Division Bench (Madhuresh Prasad, J.), who has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant earlier vide order dated 05.07.2017, is available.

5. The long standing convention and judicial discipline requires that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Bench which had passed the earlier orders and is 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 directly affect the credibility of the court and the confidence of the litigant, it would also cause wastage of court’s precious time.

6. In M. Jagan Mohan Rao vs. P. V. Mohan Rao [(2010) 15 SCC 491], the Supreme Court held that where earlier bail application was rejected, subsequent bail application must be placed before the same Judge even though roster has been changed and Judge concerned is not regularly hearing bail application any more and only exception is that Judge is not available.

7. In Jagmohan Bahl & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., [(2014) 16 SCC 501], the Supreme Court held that Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system. This cannot be allowed to be encouraged.

8. In aforesaid case, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors., [(1998) 4 SCC 577], wherein it had observed that a litigant cannot be permitted "choice" of the "forum" and every attempt at "forum-shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand.

9. The aforesaid principle set out by the Supreme Court in the matters relating to subsequent or successive application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would also be applicable to the subsequent or successive bail application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. In Rupam Pathak vs. The State of Bihar through C.B.I., Bihar, Patna [Criminal Appeal (DB) No.393 of 2012], the appellant was convicted for charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder by the trial court. In appeal, a division bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2012, rejected her prayer for bail. Subsequently, she filed another interlocutory application, vide I.A. No.2075 of 2012, which was listed before another division bench, which granted her bail, vide order dated 08.01.2013.

11. One Sudip Kumar challenged the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2013 granting bail to the convict Rupam Pathak before the Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.1836 of 2013 on amongst others the ground that though her bail was earlier rejected by a division bench, which was available, the subsequent application for bail was entertained by another Division Bench.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2013 granting bail to the respondent Rupam Pathak observed as under: –

“We are of the considered opinion t