After a case has been transferred to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge for trial, the Sessions Judge ceases to exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory applications, including bail applications, filed in the Sessions Trial, even if the Sessions Judge had rejected previous bail applications.

( 1 ) THISIS a reference made by III Additional Sessions Judge (III A. S. J. in short), Raipur, u/ S. 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (hereinafter called the 'code' ).

( 2 ) POLICE Station Bhatapara, in district Raipur arrested accused Chandrahas Dewangan for the offences u/ss. 307, 427, 435, 325 and 323, IPC committed on 27-3-1990, in village Maldi, district Raipur. He filed bail application No. 1025/90, u/ S. 439 of the Code which was rejected on 23-6-1990 on merits by the Sessions Judge (Annexure-A ). Meanwhile on commitment, the case against the accused was registered as S. T. No. 191/ 90 and by order dated 21-6-90, it was allotted and transferred to the Court of III A. S. J. to try it in link-court at Baloda Bazar.

( 3 ) ON 24-7-1990, the accused again filed another bail-application No. 1211/90 under S. 439 before the Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 1-8-90, transferred it for disposal to the Court of III A. S. J. The III A. S. J. by order dated 22-8-1990 sent the bail application along with records of Sessions Trial to the Sessions Judge since earlier bail application was also rejected by him and as such the subsequent application could be disposed of by him alone. The Sessions Judge, however, by his order dated 17-9-1990 again transferred the bail application to the Court of III A. S. J. with the remarks that S. T. No. 191/90 against the applicant/ accused is pending for trial in his court (Annexure-C) and as such the application should be disposed of by him alone.

( 4 ) ON 21-9-1990, the Additional Public Prosecutor raised an objection that the subsequent bail application could be heard and disposed of by the Sessions Judge alone who had rejected the earlier bail application. The pendency of the trial confers no jurisdiction on III A. S. J. to dispose of the subsequent bail application. The learned III A. S. J. has, there- fore, made the present reference with the following questions:- (I) Whether in the light of decisions in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hassan Khan AIR 1987 SC 1613: (1987 Cri LJ 1872), Daini alias Raju v. State of M. P. 1989 JLJ 323 : (1989 Cri LJ (NOC) 149 and Munna Singh Tomar v. State of M. P. 1989 JLJ 350: (1990 Cri LJ 49), Shri R. K. Mishra, Sessions Judge, Raipur, who had rejected the first bail application, ceases to exercise jurisdiction to dispose of subsequent bail application merely because the sessions trial against the accused is allocated to the Court of III A. S. J. ? (ii) Whether the subsequent bail application during pendency of trial in other court has to be disposed of by the same judge if available?

( 5 ) THE filing of repeated bail applications found favour in the decision of Supreme Court in Babu Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : 1978 Cri LJ 651: AIR 1978 SC 527, wherein it was held that an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. The Court is not barred from second consideration at a later stage. It was held that an interim direction is not conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation.

( 6 ) IN one of the cases, Shri Batt J. while rejecting the bail application of the accused observed, "there is no justification for grant of bail to the applicants-accused on any terms, whatsoever, till the disposal of the case against them, since there is already more than sufficient incriminating evidence, for their inculpation, in the investigation done so far. " On a reference the Division Bench in Ram Sahodar v. State of M. P. 1985 JLJ 750. 1986 Cri LJ 279 held that while dismissing a bail application, it is not permissible to make an order to the effect that the applicant cannot be released on bail on any terms whatsoever till the disposal of the case against him.

( 7 ) ANOTHER land mark decision was rendered in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan AIR 1987 SC 1613: 1