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.
