@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
H.N. Narayan, J.@mdashThese petitioners filed Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999 on the file of this Court through their Advocate Sri R.B. Deshpande for bail. They earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 247 and 257 of 1998 for bail. Since the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed their application, they had filed the bail petition in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999. All the 22 accused against whom the Moka Police in Bellary Taluk filed a charge-sheet alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, filed the bail petition. This Court after notice to the High Court Government Pleader and after hearing both the sides and after perusal of case papers found that there was sufficient material for believing that all the peti- tioners except petitioners 19 and 21 in the petition are guilty of the offence of murder and other offences alleged against them. Therefore, allowed the bail petition of petitioners 19 and 21 and dismissed the petition filed by the rest of the accused.
2. 2nd accused-2nd petitioner; 13th accused-13th petitioner and 5th accused-5th petitioner filed Cri. P. No. 2535 of 1999 afresh before this Court which came up before His Lordship Justice S.R. Bannurmath on 22-11-1999 and obtained bail without disclosing the earlier order passed by this Court in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999. 17th accused-17th petitioner; 4th accused-4th petitioner and 14th accused-14th petitioner filed another petition in Cri. P. No. 3741 of 1999 which came up before His Lordship Justice V.G. Sabhahit on 20-4-2000 for orders and obtained bail on the ground that some of the accused were released on bail by His Lordship Justice B.K. Sangalad in Cri. P. No. 2535 of 1999. 22nd ac-cused-22nd petitioner in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999 again approached this Court in Cri. P. No. 1701 of 1999 which came up before His Lordship B.K. Sangalad on 3-8-1999 and obtained bail. From the perusal of the orders passed by the High Court in subsequent bail petitions, there is no reference to the order passed by this Court in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999, dated 22-2-1999. Based upon these subsequent orders, the other accused have filed Cri. P. Nos. 3692, 1266 and 1229 of 2000 for bail. Unfortunately, for them, these bail petitions are placed before me. When the Court pointed out that a similar petition was made before this Court (before me only) in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999, there was a faint submission of ignorance. Therefore, this Court directed the office to verify the records and place all the records before this Court. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999, I find that the accused have played fraud and committed contempt of Court by filing petitions without disclosing the filing of earlier petitions before this Court and the result thereon. This Court has issued show-cause notice to all those accused persons who obtained bail in subsequent bail petitions. They entered appearance through their Advocates. I thereafter heard the learned Counsel and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and perused the records. I find that the petitioners named in Cri. P. No. 2535 of 1999, DD: 22-11-1999; Cri. P. No. 3741 of 1999, DD: 20-4-2000 and Cri. P. No. 1701 of 1999, DD: 3-8-1999 have approached this Court by playing fraud without disclosing the earlier order of this Court. Cancellation of bail virtually infringes the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under the Constitution which can only be curbed by procedure established by law.
3. An accused person is entitled to file successive bail petitions if there is substantial changes in fact situation and if the Court finds substantial changes in the fact situation, it is necessary thus to release the accused on bail. In this case, the accused persons who were charged for offences of murder and other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code, initially approached the learned Sessions Judge for bail which was denied to them. They approached this Court in Cri. P. No. 340 of 1999 disposed of on 22-2-1999 granting bail to A-19, A-21 only and dismissing bail petition filed by A-1 to A-18, A-20 and A-22. As stated earlier, some of the accused approached in batches by filing different bail petitions one after the other. There was no substantial change in fact situation when those accused persons filed second set of bail petitions before the High Court. The circumstances under which three petitions came up before three different Judges of the High Court resulting in grant of bail, has been enumerated supra. I have made an observation that bail has been obtained without bringing to the notice of the learned Judges of the disposal of earlier bail petition filed by all the accused persons. What is the procedure to be followed by the High Court in case of successive bail petitions before the High Court is settled by the decision of the Apex Court in
"The order granting bail was not proper and liable to be set aside. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the order granting bail should not have been passed reversing all earlier orders including the one rendered by the Single Judge of the same High Court only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one Judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of Court inasmuch 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".
Therefore, in my opinion, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled and accordingly it is cancelled. The accused who are released on bail in the above petitions are directed to surrender before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary, in S.C. No. 14 of 1999. In the event of their failure, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall issue non-bailable warrants against all the accused except A-19 and A-21 and commit them to prison, pending disposal of the sessions case.
