JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - "Whether the application for bail of a co-accused, under Section 438 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short 'the CrPC') filed for the first time, has necessarily to be placed before the very same learned judge who had occasion to consider similar application of the other accused involved in the same crime number, to be in conformity with the principles of 'judicial discipline' and to avoid the possible chance of any 'abuse of the process', forms the issue to be resolved.

2. The matter came to be listed before this Court, pursuant to the orders passed by the Chief Justice on the administrative side, taking note of the divergent opinions and orders issued by different learned Single Judges of this Court on the judicial side, necessitating a proper declaration of law in this regard, which cannot be done on the administrative side.

3. The above application has been filed by one of the co-accused in Crime No. 770 of 2018 registered at the Police Station, City Kotwali, Balodabazar, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (wrongly typed as Dowry 'Protection' Act in the cause title). The Applicant states that it is his first bail application before this Court and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, it has been pointed out that bail application of the other co-accused has already been disposed of by this Court in MCrC(A) No. 775 of 2019 (Ram Chandra Kesharwani & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh) vide order dated 20.05.2019.

4. The matter was listed by the Registry before a learned Judge of this Court, in terms of the earlier orders passed by other learned Judges on the judicial side and also with reference to the orders passed by the then Chief Justice on the administrative side, to the effect that when bail application is filed by a co-accused, arising from the same crime number of the same police station, it has to be listed before the very same learned Judge who had occasion to consider similar application of other accused. However, the learned Single Judge before whom the matter was listed, passed an order on 14.08.2019 to the effect that, the law declared by the Supreme Court in Shazad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 and the subsequent rulings in this regard were having no application in the instant case and that, the declaration in the said judgment was only in respect of "successive bail application" filed by the same accused, and not in respect of the first application of a co-accused, in turn, directing the Registry to cause the matter to be listed before the regular Bench after getting leave of the Chief Justice.

5. The Registry has put up a 'note', pointing out the sequence of events. A judicial order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, way back on 22.11.2017, in MCrC No. 5251/2017, in the following manner:

"It is informed that MCrC Nos. 4646 of 2017 and 4722 of 2017 preferred by the co-accused persons are listed for hearing before the Coordinate Bench. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to seek appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side for analogous hearing of the bail applications arising out of the same crime number.

The matter be placed before the AR(J) today itself."

The Registry states that as per the oral directions of the Chief Justice on 23.11.2017, consequential directions were issued by the Registry on the same date, to have all the bail applications arising out of same crime number, to be clubbed and listed together before the same Bench for analogous hearing.

6. Sometime later, another order came to be passed on the judicial side, by a learned Judge of this Court in MCrC No. 5795 of 2017, on 09.04.2018, which is to the following effect:

"Since the case of the co-accused person has been heard by particular Bench, it would be necessary that the case of the oth