Judicial discipline mandates that subsequent bail applications following a withdrawal should be presented to the same judge to ensure consistency and prevent potential abuse of judicial processes.

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Re. I.A. No.01 of 2025: -

By filing this application, the sole appellant, namely, Saurav Kumar @ Saurabh Kumar, has renewed his prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

2. It appears that earlier this appeal was admitted on 19.06.2024 and thereafter it was heard on the point of suspension of sentence. In fact, there is an admission as to this fact in paragraph 2 of the application. The prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence was taken up for consideration on 18.01.2025 together with the other analogous appeals. The order dated 18.01.2025 passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reads as under: -

“Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.646 of 2024, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.657 of 2024, Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.678 of 2024, Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.683 of 2024, Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2024, Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.727 of 2024 and Mr. Shailesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP for the State appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.751 of 2024 and Mr. Rounak Sinha, learned counsel for the informant appearing in all the appeals.

2. Learned counsels appearing for the respective appellants do not want to press the prayer for grant of bail for respective appellants for the present.

3. However, it has been requested that as the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for commission of the offence punishable under section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code , in view of the provisions contained under Section 374 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure , the appeals be heard within stipulated time.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, prayer for bail and for suspension of sentence is not entertained for the present. However, in view of the provision contained in Section 374 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , office is directed to prepare the paper-book and thereafter list the matter under the caption “For Hearing” in the week commencing from 12th of May, 2025.”

3. Although in terms of the order dated 18.01.2025, the appeals were listed for hearing, but could not be taken-up for consideration. Thus, the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.657 of 2024 has filed the present application.

4. In course of hearing of the application, this Court noticed that the earlier identical prayer of the appellant was considered by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of the Hon’ble Judges (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey) is still available in this Court, therefore, this becomes a tied up matter and the interlocutory application should have been listed before a Division Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey should have been on the Bench. This Court pointed