SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ker) 937

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, K.T.SANKARAN
FIROS ALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Nireesh Mathew, Advocate.

ORDER :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

1. The Apex Court, in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [AIR 1987 SC 1613(1)], while taking notice of the fact that successive bail applications are being filed by the same accused in the same crime, held that the long standing convention and judicial discipline requiring the bail application/applications subsequently filed shall be placed before the learned Judge who passed orders on the bail application filed earlier need to be followed. It was observed further in the same matter thus:

"5. ...... 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 in as much 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. It 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 lik





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top