JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“

A. MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD and DECLARE that procedure and practice of NOT placing the Successive Bail filed under the nomenclature of Criminal Appeal, Criminal Revision Application or Writ Petition before the same Honourable Court/Bench/Coram is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. reported as (1987) 2 SCC 684 and the full bench decision of this Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Babubhal Bachubhai Bhabhor v. State Of Gujarat reported as 2004 SCC ONLINE GUJ 125 as well as dehors to the Circular dated 8.4.2002.

B. MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD AND DECLARE that Subsequent or Successive (a) Criminal Appeal/s filed U/S 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, (b) Criminal Revision Application filed U/S 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (c) Criminal Appeal filed U/S 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing Ball shall be placed before the same Honourable Court / Bench / Coram which decided the earlier Bail and disposed of as withdrawn/rejected.

ALTERNATIVELY

AA MAY BE PLEASED TO pass any such other order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the facts and law including but not limited to MODIFYING the Instruction No. Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.4.2019 suitably in accordance with law of the Land.”

2. The petitioner in person herein is a practicing advocate and has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the instructions bearing No.Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.04.2019 whereby the then Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice had directed that criminal appeals filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against an order of the Special Court or the exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail, shall be placed before the Hon’ble Court as per the roster irrespective of the fact that earlier criminal appeals or criminal misc. applications filed prior to instruction No.Judicial/05/2018 dated 19.06.2018 came to be disposed of as withdrawn/rejected as the case may be by another Bench. The petitioner in person submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgments in cases of Shahzad Hasan Khan vs Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr reported in AIR 1987 SC 1613 and Harjeet Singh @ Seeta vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 281, has directed that the subsequent bail applications to be listed before the same Judge who decided the earlier bail applications. Pursuant to those judgments, the respondent herein had issued a Circular dated 08.04.2002 whereby it was instructed to list the subsequent bail applications by the same accused before the same Judge who decided the bail applications earlier. He further submitted that same analogy would apply to the appeals filed under Section 14A (2) of the Atrocities Act as though the nomenclature being criminal appeals, essentially those appeals are essentially applications for bail only. He further submitted that the fundamental principles with regard to bail carved out in several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court would apply with equal force to the appeals under Section 14A (2) of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the appeals under Section 14A (2) of the Atrocities Act, the revision application under the Juvenile Justice Act and the appeals arising out of proceedings for trial under the National Investigation Agency Act, require no different treatment than the bail applications. On the contrary, giving different treatment to such appeals would amount to discrimination on the basis of nomenclature which is impermissible under the law. He furthe