Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.

The accused in Crime No. 1593/2015 of Kazhakkoottam Police Station registered under Section 376 IPC has filed this application seeking for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The prosecution case is that the petitioner made promise to the de facto complainant that he would marry her and thereafter, he had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her.

2. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that this is a second application filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in the said circumstances, this application cannot be entertained, particularly, when there is no change in circumstance.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar in filing the second application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in the said circumstances, this application is perfectly maintainable.

5. It is admitted that the earlier application filed by the petitioner seeking for the same relief was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court as per order dated 23/06/2015 in Bail Application No. 3024 of 2015. It is true that the principles of res judicata are not applicable to an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. However, the practice of filing successive bail applications must be depreciated. A Division Bench of this Court in Aneesh Vs. State of Kerala, held thus:

"If the case put forward by the accused was considered on merits and an application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as such, it will not be proper for that accused to apply again for anticipatory bail in the absence of any change in circumstances. Finality of orders passed by the Court requires that no party should be allowed to put forward similar contention in successive applications."

6. It is clear from the above passage that if the Court considers and disposes of an application for anticipatory bail on merits, the 2nd application can be filed only when there is change in circumstances.

7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether it is proper for this Court to consider this application, particularly, when the earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by another learned Single Judge of this Court.

8. In the decision in Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another, the Apex Court took notice of the fact that the successive bail applications filed on behalf of the accused had been disposed of finally by one Judge of the High Court. However, subsequently, another learned Judge granted bail to the accused. In that context, the Apex Court held that long standing convention and judicial discipline require the bail application to be placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier orders. The Apex Court further held in Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) thus:

"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."

Their Lordships further held in Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) thus:

"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. Since Justice Kamleshwar Nath was sitting in Court on June 23, 1986 the respondent's bail application should have been place