Back
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Stephy Watson – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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
Anticipatory bail and regular bail applications are distinct types, requiring different procedures for posting and consideration in relation to the same crime.
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.
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.
Judicial consistency dictates similar treatment in bail applications, particularly for co-accused with analogous claims, based on prior decisions.
A second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable even if new circumstances develop after rejection or disposal of an earlier application.
Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
The principle of parity in bail applications mandates that co-accused in similar circumstances should be treated alike, ensuring consistency in judicial decisions.
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; prior denials must be respected to prevent judicial abuse.
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
