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.

ORDER :

Introduction to the Reference:

1. This bench is called upon to answer the following reference made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in an order dated 21.02.2025 in Crl. O.P. No. 31787 of 2024:

“Whether the clarification issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court [W.P. (Crl). No.55 of 2025 decided on 07.02.2025], is only with regard to the listing of the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR or is also with regard to the listing of successive bail applications of an accused before the roster Judge, even if the Judge who dealt with the earlier application for bail/anticipatory bail is available?”

Background of the Context:

2. Reference has been made on account of line of Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the observations made by the Apex Court, and it necessitates this Court to consider the reference in order to avoid inconsistency in dealing with bail/anticipatory bail petitions. Different High Courts are following distinct procedures for listing of bail/anticipatory bail petitions. Therefore, certain procedures being adopted by the one High Court if applied to other High Courts, it results in an anomalous situation and inconsistency in deciding the bail petitions have arisen. Therefore, it is imminent to look into the march of law on the issue relating to listing of bail/anticipatory bail petitions for hearing.

Relevant Precedents:

3. Initially, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 684 made an observation in paragraph No.5 of the Judgment that “If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of Court’s time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders”.

4. Perusal of the facts in the above case reveal that the criminal case arose from and out of a single First Information Report (F.I.R) and in order to avoid inconsistency in the matter of grant of bail/anticipatory bail applications, the Apex Court made an observation. The said observation was made in the context of the facts and need not be construed as a direction to be followed universally by all the High Courts across the Country.

5. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 605 the Apex Court made certain observations to avert inconsistency in dealing with the bail/anticipatory bail applications. Even in the said case, while emphasizing the importance of personal liberty, the Apex Court has not issued any direction to all the High Courts across the Country.

6. In the case of M. Jagan Mohan Rao vs. P.V. Mohan Rao and Another, 2010 (15) SCC 491 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan cited supra and made an observation that “Since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available. We hope that the High Court will take notice of the Judgment of this Court”

7. In the case of Jagmohan Bahl and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 501 the Apex Cort in paragraph No.13 of the Judgment reiterated that “the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propr