Bombay High Court: A bail application was filed under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code after an earlier bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate judge of the Court. Amit Borkar, J., directed the applicant to file the application before the same Judge who permitted to withdraw the application as the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.
The Court noted that the right to file successive bail application accrues to the applicant only on existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstance. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutatory principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on merits, if available at the place of sitting.
The Court further noted that There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person’s right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence, the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere unconnected with the acts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognized principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.
As per the Standing order dated 29-02-2008 passed by Chief Justice of High Court, Appellate Side, the Court observed that the standing order is still in force and holds the field as no material was available on record stating that the standing order was no longer in force, have ceased to be in effect, or has been subsequently modified or recalled.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and directed him to move the application before the same Judge who had earlier permitted the applicant to withdraw the application.
[Ajay Rajaram Hinge v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, decided on 28-07-2023]
Advocates before Court
Mr. Manoj Mohite, Sr. Advocate a/w Sachin Arude a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan a/w Shailesh D. Chavan for the Applicant;
Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.
