JUDGMENT On merits the earlier application was dismissed by Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. Then, the second application was moved on the ground of ailment as the applicant is a cardiac patient. Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. admitted the application and vide order dated 9.3.1994, directed to call for the report from the Head of the Department of Medicine of the G.R. Medical College and J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, for finding out whether the applicant/patient at all requires the Angiography. Vide report dated 23.3.1994, the Prof. and Head of Department, after examining the petitioner, advised his line of treatment for the next ten days so that after ten days, the patient is evaluated both clinically and by treadmill for treatment and further investigation. After ten days, the patient was again examined on 5.4.1994. The Prof. and the Head of Department of Medicine, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, has sent a Confidential report dated 5.4.1994 wherein it is reported that the patient underwent treadmill test (expertise E.C.G.) on 4.4.1994 in the Department of Medicine, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. At this test, the applicant was found positive. In view of this, it was suggested that he should be sent to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to undergo further investigations (Coronary Angiography and Muga test) so that further treatment can be suggested for his cardiac condition. It was also reported that these investigational facilities are not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be released on interim bail so that he may get his expert treatment, as advised. Shri Arun Pateria raised an objection that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan ( AIR 1987 SC 1613 ), this Court should not hear the case and pass the order. True, judicial discipline requires that a subsequent bail application must be placed before the same Court. True, judicial discipline requires that a subsequent bail application must be placed before the same Court. But, today, it is not that this is the only bail application which is listed before me which is dismissed by Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. Today about 35 bail applications have been fixed for hearing out of which except about six-seven petitions, all are repeat bail applications which were originally heard and disposed of by Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. I myself enquired on the last occasion when these cases were listed before me when Hon. the Chief Justice, U.L. Bhat, was sitting at this bench. It was brought to my notice that the cases have been listed because of the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing all these matters before me because Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. is, as per current roster, dealing in constitutional matters and other writ petitions, and is not available for hearing the bail applications which are pending since last 4/5 months. The cases have thus come to be listed as directed by the Hon. Chief Justice and not at the instance of the office. Therefore, I have no alternative, but to hear the petitions and dispose them of in accordance with law. No such objection was raised while I was hearing the petitions earlier to this petition, but as the counsel for the complainant raised the objection, therefore, I have to state all these facts as to how and in what circumstances, the matters have been listed before me. Moreover, the matter is not being heard by me on merits but for grant of provisional bail wherein it is Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. himself admitted the petition and directed for calling of the report after hearing State counsel and counsel for the complainant. At this stage, Shri Pateria, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the certificate, in question, has been obtained, after the dismissal of the application on merits on 25.1.1994, at that time the applicant did not make any prayer for releasing him on the ground of sickness, but after the rejection, the applicant moved another application. Therefore, it clearly demonstrates that the certificate has been obtained. I am not impressed by this submission as it is the learned Judge who dismissed the application, entertained the second application and called for the report. Therefore, it clearly demonstrates that the certificate has been obtained. I am not impressed by this submission as it is the learned Judge who dismissed the application, entertained the second application and called for the report. In view of the fact that the report is positive, I direct the applicant to be released on interim bail for a period of two months on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, for his surrendering on 10th of June, 1994. At this stage, Shri Pateria pointed out that the trial is fixed on 3.5.1994 and because of the absence of the accused, the trial is likely to be adjourned. For that, it is made clear that the applicant shall face the trial on the date fixed. If he fails to attend the case on the next date fixed, the trial Court shall be free to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in respect of cancellation of bail. At this stage, Shri Mishra submits that if the applicant is admitted for operation or bye-pass surgery, then, in that case, the applicant shall not be able to attend, and, therefore, the applicant undertakes that on that count, the applicant shall not seek any adjournment and shall cross-examine the witnesses. I am not to say anything over it. That will be a matter to be considered by the trial Court. With the above directions, the application is disposed of. AIR 1987 SC 1613 discussed.