Kulshrestha, J.–1. "Whether the second or successive bail applications in a pending appeal or bail application under section 389 or 437/439, Cr. P.C. should be considered by the Bench which has considered the first bail application unless the Court which decided the first application is not available for a sufficient duration, such as "when the Court is in vacation" is the question referred for our answer by a Division Bench of this Court in the context of an earlier decision of a Division Bench at Indore Seat in Gopal v. State of MP. [1999 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 22] viewed as conflicting with the ratio of a full bench decision of this Court in Narayan Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1993 JLJ 225 = 1993 MPLJ 1) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (AIR 1987 SC 1613).

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the Judgment dated 20.8. 1996 of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 102/95, by which he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Along with the appeal, an application I.A. No. 6659/96 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal was also filed, which was rejected by order dated 9.1.1997 by the Division Bench of N..P. Singh and V.K. Agrawal, JJ. with liberty to the appellant to renew the prayer for bail after two years if the case was not disposed of in the meanwhile. Accordingly, another application I.A. No. 424/99 was submitted under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, which was placed before another Division Bench in view of the Judgment in Gopal v. State of M.P. (supra). The Division Bench noticed that the usual practice of the Court was to post such applications before the bench which earlier dismissed the application for grant of bail and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (supra) and of a Full Bench of this Court in Narayan Prasad State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the said question has now been referred to this Full Bench.

3. The posting of the subsequent bail applications before the same Bench which had earlier rejected an application, was never considered to be an imperative of law, but this requirement was recognized in view of the long standing convention and judicial discipline. It was observed in Shahzad Hasan Khan's case that the convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle as it prevents abuse of process of Court and obviates possibility of an impression that a litigant is shunning or selecting a Court depending on whether the Court is to his liking or not. It was further observed that 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, therefore, judicial discipline required that such matters were placed before the same Judge, if he was available, for orders. Again, in a case where an accused had been enlarged on bail for a' period of two months after his applications had earlier been rejected by another Bench, it was observed in State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao (AIR 1989 SC 2292) that in such cases it was necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court was not abused by a litigant and an impression was not created that a litigant has either successfully avoided one Judge or selected another to secure an order which he had not been able to obtain. It was emphasized that in such a situation, the proper course was to direct that