Case Law Details
Shekhar Prasad Mahto Vs Registrar General (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India has issued a clarification regarding the assignment of bail applications stemming from the same First Information Report (FIR), addressing concerns about inconsistent judicial outcomes. The directive aims to ensure uniformity in decisions without disrupting the High Courts’ established roster systems.
The clarification arose from a petition filed by Shekhar Prasad Mahto, who contended that his bail application, linked to an FIR, was assigned to a different judge (“Judge B”) despite a co-accused’s bail plea from the same FIR having been heard by another judge (“Judge A”). This practice, the petitioner argued, contravened previous Supreme Court observations.
Previous Directives and Anomalies
The Supreme Court, in its earlier observations from a three-judge bench in SLP(Crl) No. 7203 of 2023, had noted an “anomalous situation” in the High Court of Allahabad where matters arising from the same FIR were placed before different judges. This often led to inconsistent rulings, with some judges granting bail while others refused it, even when the roles of the accused were similar. These observations were reiterated by a two-judge bench in SLP(Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023, titled “Rajpal Vs. State of Rajasthan.”
The Court acknowledged that its previous directive intended to ensure consistency when bail matters from the same FIR were assigned to different benches. However, it recognized that a strict, universal application of this directive could disrupt the High Courts’ roster systems. Judges’ assignments often change periodically, and a judge previously handling bail applications might subsequently be part of a Division Bench for other types of cases. Mandating that the same judge hear all applications from one FIR, irrespective of roster changes, could lead to delays in bail matters, which inherently require expeditious resolution.
Clarified Guidelines for High Courts
To reconcile the need for consistency with practical administrative realities, the Supreme Court issued a refined set of guidelines. It clarified that:
- If a particular High Court assigns bail applications to different single judges or benches, then all applications arising out of the same FIR should be placed before one learned Judge. This measure is intended to foster consistency in judicial views across multiple bail applications related to the same case.
- However, this directive would not apply if, due to a change in the roster, the judge who was previously handling bail matters is no longer assigned to such cases. This provision aims to prevent disruption to court functioning.
- Furthermore, to maintain consistency, the judge who hears subsequent bail applications from the same FIR is expected to give “due weightage” to the views taken by the earlier judge who had dealt with related bail applications. This encourages a degree of judicial deference and continuity in handling similar matters.
The Supreme Court emphasized that deviating from this balanced approach, by requiring judges from different assignments or Division Benches to hear all applications from the same FIR, could further delay decisions in bail matters. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court has been directed to circulate this order to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts for compliance. The Court also reiterated the urgency in deciding bail matters, instructing the High Court judge assigned to the present petitioner’s bail application to decide it expeditiously.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in defiance of the orders passed by this Court on 31.07.2023 in SLP(Crl.) No. 7203 of 2003 and on 12.12.2023 in SLP(Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023, the matters pertaining to the same FIR were not placed before the same learned Judge.
2. It is submitted that this Court in unequivocal terms has directed that all the matters arising out of the same FIR should be placed before the same learned Judge.
3. It is, however, submitted that in the present case though Judge ‘A’ had passed an order in the bail application preferred by a co-accused, the application for bail preferred by the petitioner was placed before Judge ‘B’.
4. The three judges-Bench of this Court in SLP(Crl) No. 7203 of 2023 has observed thus:
“7. We have come across various matters from the High Court of Allahabad, wherein matters arising out of the same FIR are placed before different Judges. This leads to anomalous situation. Inasmuch as some of the learned Judges grant bail and some other Judges refuse to grant bail, even when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar.”
5. The said observations have been reiterated by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023 titled as “Rajpal Vs. State of Rajasthan”.
6. What this Court meant in passing the order dated 31.07.2023 was that when the bail matters are assigned to different Benches and when those bail applications arise out of the same FIR and if such application are heard by different Benches, it leads to an anomalous situation, inasmuch as some of the benches grant bail whereas some of them take a different view.
7. However, it is to be noted that in many High Courts, the roster system is followed.
8. After a particular period, the assignment of the learned Judges change. It is also quite possible that the learned Single Judge, who was earlier taking up the assignment of bail matters may in the subsequent roster be a part of the Division bench.
9. We are, therefore, of the view that if the aforesaid direction is followed universally, it may lead to disruption of benches inasmuch as the learned judge who had initially heard the bail application of one of the accused, may have become a part of some Division Bench when a bail application arising out of the same FIR is filed by another accused.
10. We, therefore, clarify that if in a particular High Court, the bail applications are assigned to different single Judge/Bench, in that event, all the applications arising out of same FIR should be placed before one learned Judge.
11. This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the learned judge in different bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
12. However, if on account of change of the roster, the learned judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters is not taking up the bail matters, the aforesaid directions would not be applicable.
13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
14. We find that if this is not followed and if the judges siting in the Division Bench or thereafter taking up different assignments are required to take up the applications arising out of the same FIR, it may further delay the decisions in the bail matters.
15. The Registrar (Judl.) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts.
16. Needless to state that taking into consideration the urgency in deciding bail matters, learned Judge of the High Court to whom the bail application of the present petitioner is assigned, shall decide the matter expeditiously.
17. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Author Bio
