In the Instant Matter of Ajay Rajaram Hinge v State of Maharashtra, After an earlier bail application was denied by a co-ordinate judge of the Court, a bail application was submitted under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis of Court order
Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court’s single-judge bench instructed the applicant to apply to the same judge who had previously granted permission to withdraw the application because that judge will need to determine whether the applicant’s claimed change in circumstances qualifies him to file a new bail application.
The Court stated that the applicant only has the right to make a further bail application if there has been a meaningful change in circumstances. An important shift in the situation is a requirement for submitting further bail petitions. A change in the facts or the law that necessitates a change in the prior point of view or where the earlier conclusion is no longer valid is referred to as a significant change in circumstances as determined by law. The benevolent judicial propriety rule that subsequent bail applications must be adjudicated on the merits by the same Judge, if available at the place of sitting, is unaffected by a change in circumstances. A judge’s authority to assess an application and a person’s right based on a meaningful change in circumstances need to be distinguished clearly, the Court said. A suspect has the right to submit a new bail application if there has been a significant change in the circumstances. The authority to determine such a second application, however, is exercised in a different area that is unrelated to the proceedings in the case. The idea behind this is that if repeated bail petitions are handled by several courts, conflicting decisions would result, and the litigant would have to pester each judge until they got the decision they wanted. Therefore, if there has been a change in circumstances that qualifies the applicant to submit a new bail application, the same court must rule on that matter.
According to the Standing order from the Chief Justice of the High Court, Appellate Side, the Court observed that the standing order is still in effect and holds the field because there was no evidence on file indicating that the standing order was no longer in force, had ceased to be in effect, or had subsequently been modified or recalled. As a result, the court dismissed the application and ordered him to have it heard by the same judge as when the case had previously been allowed to be withdrawn.
CASE NAME – Ajay Rajaram Hinge v State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 1738 of 2023