Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Shakuntala Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking a direction to place this case before a particular Bench in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 and order dated 12.12.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023.
2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the instant interlocutory application has been filed only on misleading ground in order to avoid this Bench as it would be evident from paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 of the instant I.A.
Reason for such submission is that in other cases, i.e., Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022; W.P.(Cr.) No. 443 of 2022 and; W.P.(Cr.) No. 226 of 2023 the issue of bail has already been dealt with by a Bench presided over by one of the members (Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) of this Bench.
3. It has been submitted that the aforesaid orders have not been brought in the said interlocutory application. It has further been submitted by making reference of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2025 (Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court & Anr.) that
Consistency in the assignment of bail applications arising from the same FIR must be maintained to avoid judicial discrepancies.
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....
All bail applications arising from the same FIR must be assigned to one judge to ensure consistency in judicial decisions.
Judicial discipline mandates that subsequent bail applications following a withdrawal should be presented to the same judge to ensure consistency and prevent potential abuse of judicial processes.
The Supreme Court clarified that all bail applications arising from the same FIR must be listed before the same Judge to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting decisions.
Anticipatory bail and regular bail applications are distinct types, requiring different procedures for posting and consideration in relation to the same crime.
Judicial consistency dictates similar treatment in bail applications, particularly for co-accused with analogous claims, based on prior decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
