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 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 court orders."

2. From the aforementioned observations of the Apex Court, it is amply clear that in order to prevent abuse of the process of court and to prohibit the litigant from forum shopping in selecting the court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not and in order to discourage the filing of successive bail applications without any new factor having cropped up, the successive bail applications in the same crime by the same accused shall be placed before the same Judge who has disposed of the earlier bail application, if such learned Judge is available for orders. If such a procedure is adopted, conflicting orders could also be avoided.

3. The ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgment is reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao [AIR 1989 SC 2292] equivalent to [(1989) Supp. (2) SCC 605] wherein, it is observed thus:

"In such a situation, the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court in as much as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice, if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the court's time as a Judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with dispatch. It will also result in consistency."

4. The aforementioned two judgments are referred with approval in Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2014 (14) SCALE 224] wherein it is observed thus:

"On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system. This cannot be allowed to be encouraged."

It was further observed by the Apex Court in Jagmohan Bahl (supra) that it was the duty of the prosecution to bring to the notice of the Judge concerned that such a bail applic