IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail and regular bail applications are distinct types, requiring different procedures for posting and consideration in relation to the same crime.

ORDER :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

These cases have been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to a reference by a learned Single Judge seeking clarification on the procedure to be adopted by the Registry for posting successive or subsequent bail applications arising out of the same crime.

2. Recently, in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [(2024) 4 SCC 432] and Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455), it has been observed that all matters arising from the same Crime/FIR must be placed before the same Judge in order to avoid inconsistent or contradictory decisions. Though the said directions pertained to the respective courts concerned, the said judgments were directed to be circulated to all High Courts for correction of the system, wherever required. Due to the aforesaid observations, the Registry of this Court has been placing all successive and subsequent bail applications, of the same accused and even that of co-accused in both anticipatory and regular bail applications, before the same Judge who had considered any type of applications earlier, relating to the same crime.

3. The learned Single Judge before whom all bail applications were being posted, expressed a doubt after mentioning a poignant situation. After referring to the factual difficulties, it was observed that the practice of placing bail applications of all types before the same Judge who had initially considered any one application arising out of the same crime, has started choking the present roster of work allotted to the learned Judge. Since the reference order explicitly elucidates the situation, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion, as below:

10. My understanding of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka and Pradhani Jani's cases and the Standing Orders of the Orissa High Court is that applications for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are to be treated as a separate class. In other words, just because a Judge has heard an application for pre-arrest bail while he was in the bail application roster, the same shall not be a reason to post all subsequently filed applications for regular bail by the same accused or a co-accused in the same crime before the same Judge. Likewise, if there was no meritorious consideration of the earlier application, which was dismissed as withdrawn or as infructuous, the procedure of posting the applications before the same Judge does not arise. If such a procedure is adopted, it would choke the present roster of the Judge. I say this because I was on the roster for bail applications from January 2024 to November 2024. During the above period, I had passed approximately 8500 orders, of which an average of 30 to 40 per cent of the applications were dismissed. If all the second applications of the different species are posted before me, like the present batch of the cases, it would undoubtedly paralyse my functioning in the present roster, i.e., the Miscellaneous and Police protection/harassment jurisdictions. Furthermore, as the bail applications affect the personal liberty of the accused, they are to be disposed of within 2 to 4 weeks, as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Hence, they have to be given top priority.”

4. Based on the above observations, the learned Single Judge raised the following query:

“11. As a cloud regarding the posting of the subsequently filed applications of the above nature has arisen, I am of the view that the matter is to be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice to decide the procedure to be followed or to frame a Standing Order in this regard.”

5. Thereafter, the Hon’ble The Chief Justice has placed the matter for our consideration.

6. We have heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The primary question to be answered is whether in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka’s case (supra) and Pradhani Jani’s case (supra), is it obligatory for the Registry of this C