SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15585 of 2023
Decided on : 12-12-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail applications – All matters pertaining to one FIR are to be listed before same Judge so that there is consistency in orders passed – However, there is lethargy in following earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of same FIR to avoid conflicting decisions – However, Court shall not be understood to have said that at all circumstances co-accused in such cases are invariably entitled to parity – Such entitlement is certainly dependent on various relevant facts and factors – Registrar (Judicial) directed to communicate this Order to Registrar (Judicial) of all High Courts. (Paras 3, 4 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Case of the petitioner is founded on claim of parity, in view of the factual position that his co-accused was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur but his application for bail was rejected.
Findings of Court:
Taking note of fact that such situations are occurring in other High Courts as well, Registrar (Judicial) of Registry of this Court be directed to communicate this Order along with a copy of order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 to Registrar (Judicial) of all High Courts. On their receipt, they shall place the orders before Chief Justice of respective High Courts.
Result : Directions issued.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, sought permission to withdraw this special leave petition. Recording the said submission, this special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, but with the following observation touching the recurrence of a situation occurring despite the repeated orders of this Court made with a view to avert such situations.
2. On going through the pleadings in the special leave petition, it is evident that the case of the petitioner is founded on the claim of parity, in view of the factual position that his co-accused was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur but his application for bail was rejected. True that the impugned judgment would reveal that even after going through the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in the case of co-accused by the Coordinate Bench, the Bench concerned took exception to it stating that the judgment of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 6 WLC 58 (SC) was not taken into consideration.
3. In view of the grant of permission to withdraw the special leave petition, we do not think it necessary to delve into the matter any further. However, we have to reiterate the concern of this Court on the lethargy in following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR to avoid conflicting decisions. We shall not be understood to have said that at all circumstances co-accused in such cases are invariably entitled to parity and that such entitlement is certainly dependent on various relevant facts and factors.
4. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 as per order dated 31.07.2023, took note of such a situation and observed as follows:-
8. We find that it will be appropriate that all the matters pertaining to one FIR are listed before the same Judge so that there is consistency in the orders passed.”
5. After making such observations, this Court issued a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to communicate the said order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Allahabad.
6. Now, taking note of the fact that such situations are occurring in other High Courts as well, we are of the view that the Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court be directed to communicate this order along with a copy of the order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 to the Registrar (Judicial) of all the High Courts. On their receipt, they shall place the orders before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts.
Bail application – If in a particular High Court, bail applications are assigned to different single Judge/Bench, in that event, all applications arising out of same FIR should be placed before one J....
Revisiting the practice of listing bail applications before the High Court to avoid disparity in passing orders and implementing suggestions for better administration of justice, especially when the ....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts of the case after the filing of the charge-sheet before granting bail and highlighted the impact of the cancellation of a previous bail or....
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to grant bail in a criminal proceeding.
The ground of parity for granting bail must be valid and applicable, as indicated by previous judgments.
Observations in the order granting bail should be construed only for the purpose of bail and should not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of parity without considering relevant features of case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.