- (1.) THE record discloses that the application filed by the respondent for grant of bail was rejected on 8/11/2004. He made another application for bail which was placed before another learned Judge of the High Court, other than the one who had rejected the earlier bail application. The learned Judge granted bail to the respondent on 14/12/2004 i.e. within a month and 5 days of the earlier order refusing bail.
(2.) WE had called for a report from the Registrar of the High Court as to why the second bail application was not placed before the same learned Judge who had refused bail to the respondent in the first instance. From the report of the Registrar it appears that the matter was placed before another learned Judge because of the change of roster, and since the learned Judge who had rejected the bail application in the first instance was not dealing with bail applications. In view of the principle laid down by this Court, since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available. We hope that the High Court will take notice of the judgment of this Court.
(3.) IN the instant case we find that the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance has since retired and, therefore, this matter cannot be sent back for reconsideration by him. We are also informed that the trial is commencing on 30th of this month. In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to interfere with the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent.;