1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2009 Praveen Navnath Shinde ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2010 P.C. :- 1 This is a second application for bail. The first application for bail was rejected by Brother Justice A.R. Joshi. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra, Appellant vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, Respondent, reported in AIR 1989 SC page 2292, I had directed the office to place the second application 2 for bail before the same court which disposed of the earlier application. The Apex Court in the said order in para 7 has observed as under :- 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, 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 inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being crated 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 condusive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court s time as a judge familar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency. In this view that we take we are fortified by the observations of this Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment in 3 Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 : (AIR 1987 SC 1613). ............... 2 The office, thereafter, had placed the matter before Brother A.R. Joshi J. who has noted that the application was for referring the matter to medical authority for age determination of the applicant on his alleged plea of minority on the date of the offence. The office has, thereafter, placed this matter again before this court. It is no doubt true that the present application appears to be an application for referring the matter to proper medical authorities for conducting test of age determination, however, I was informed that this is an application for bail. 3 I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules empowers the learned Magistrate dealing with cases under the Juvenile Justice Act to make an enquiry in respect of the age of the accused who claims that he 4 was the juvenile on the date on which the said offence was allegedly committed by him. 4 Under these circumstances, therefore, it would be appropriate if the applicant is directed to prefer an application before the concerned Magistrate dealing with cases under the Juvenile Justice Act. If such an application is made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate is directed to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 12 of the said Rules and submit a report to this court, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of twelve weeks. The applicant shall prefer that application before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today. 5 The application is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)