JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant relating to the orders passed by different Benches of this Court whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were released on bail vide Bail Application Nos. 3747/98, 3458/98 and 2503/98 decided on 3.8.1998,23.7.1998 and 15.7.1998 respectively in a criminal case FIR No. 21/98, P.S. Galta Gate under Sections 147, 148,149, 341, 34, 307 and 302, IPC. 2. The ground on the basis of which this petition has been filed is that the bail orders were obtained by different accused persons from different Benches of this Court by concealing the fact that other Bench has already rejected the bail application of co-accused or the material facts were not placed before the Court. It has been requested in this petition that the order dated 3.8.1998 be recalled or the bail granted by the order of this Court be cancelled. 3. After narrating all the facts of the cases relating to FIR Nos. 21/98, 212/97 and 213/97 of P.S. Galta Gate certain questions of law have been framed and the request has been made that these questions be referred to a larger Bench of this Court for authoritative pronouncement. Questions of law framed are reproduced below : (i) Whether in the light of order dated 15.7.1998, made by Hon'ble Shri S.K. Sharma,J. dismissing bail application of accused Ashfaq observing that Trial Court shall first of all record the statement of the doctor and would endeavour to record the same positively within two months from the receipt of this order; further bail orders dated 23.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 made by Hon'ble S.K. Sharma, J., and Hon'ble M.A.A. Khan, J., respectively are conflicting with each other and whether such orders can be allowed to remain effective in one single FIR No. 21/98, P.S. Galta Gate under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 504, 324, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code ? (ii) Whether bail applications of different accused persons involved in one single FIR should be heard and decided by the Hon'ble Judge who decides the opening bail i.e. bail of the first applicant ? and (iii) Whether order dated 15.7.1998 with direction to first of all record the statement of doctor tantamounts to prejudice smooth trial of the above murder case ? 4. and (iii) Whether order dated 15.7.1998 with direction to first of all record the statement of doctor tantamounts to prejudice smooth trial of the above murder case ? 4. I have heard the learned Counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary on FIR No. 21/98, P.S. Galta Gate. The order dated 3.8.1998 was passed by hon'ble Justice M.A.A. Khan while deciding the bail application No. 3747/98 "Sahjad v. State of Rajasthan ". Therefore, if the petitioner wants to get the bail order recalled he should move separate application to this effect which will be placed before the concerned Bench for appropriate orders. 5. About question Nos. (i) and (iii) - After considering all the facts I am of the view that there is no legal question involved which requires adjudication by a larger Bench because while rejecting bail application, considering all the facts of a case sometimes it is ordered that statement of doctor/prosecutrix /eye witnesses be recorded by the Trial Court at the first instance. Sometimes time limit is also fixed. I do not agree with this argument that it causes prejudice or smooth trial of a case if such direction is given. There is nothing which is to be decided by a larger Bench. 6. Question No. (ii) : The learned Counsel has submitted that all the bail applications of different accused persons involved in one single FIR should be heard and decided by the Bench who decides the first bail application to avoid conflicting order. This matter has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh, D.B. Cr. Reference No. 2 of 1995 wherein it has been held as under : "On a plain reading of Rule 65 of the Rules, it does not cover the cases of co-accused in a case so as to say that when one Bench has disposed of the application of one accused in a particular FIR then the bail applications of all the co-accused in the same FIR will have to be placed for hearing before the same Bench. On the basis of this interpretation the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Singhal cannot he accepted. However, as the lawyers have pointed out their difficulties we would like to enumerate some difficulties which are faced by the Judges also. On the basis of this interpretation the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Singhal cannot he accepted. However, as the lawyers have pointed out their difficulties we would like to enumerate some difficulties which are faced by the Judges also. Generally while hearing bail applications of co-accused in a particular FIR, the orders which have been passed by other Benches accepting the bail applications are brought to the notice of the Court, but information of applications which are rejected is not given. It is true that this information should be supplied by the Government Advocate, but then the less said about this department is better. Without commenting on the reasons, it can only be said that the bail applications which have been rejected and information about the same is not placed before the Court sometimes creates problems. It may be said that all the applications of the accused in a particular FIR may not necessary be listed before the same Bench but the Bench while hearing the applications of the co-accused should be able to call from the Registry decided applications of the co-accused in the same FIR. In the register of bail applications, the office has to note FIR number and if asked to place all the bail applications in the same FIR they should be able to do so." 7. Therefore, once the matter has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, I see no reason to refer the same controversy again to a larger Bench. Therefore, this petition is meritless and hence, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******