Bail Applications Arising From Same FIR Must Be Listed Before Same Judge Unless Roster Changes: Madras High Court
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court was answering a reference made by a Single Judge regarding listing of bail and anticipatory bail applications.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has clarified that all bail and anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR would be listed before the same Judge, and only upon a change in the roster, successive bail and anticipatory bail applications, would be listed before the Judge holding such roster.
A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar addressed a reference made by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras regarding listing of bail and anticipatory bail applications and stated, “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.”
Advocate A. Manoj Kumar represented the Petitioner, while SPP Hasan Mohamed Jinnah represented the Respondent.
The Bench answered a reference made by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras as to whether listing of applications by the accused in the same FIR would also include listing of successive bail applications before the roster Judge, even if the Judge who had earlier heard such bail or anticipatory application, was available.
The High Court explained, “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.”
The Court referred to the Apex Court's decisions in Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr, and also the subsequent decision in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court & Anr., where, after considering observations from previous rulings, the Apex Court clarified issues related to the listing of bail and anticipatory bail applications across the country.
The Court added, “In few Judgments, directions are issued to list the bail/anticipatory bail applications before the same Judge, if it relates to same FIR/crime number. Certain observations made in other Judgments are that successive bail/anticipatory bail applications are to be listed before the same Judge, who initially dealt with the bail/anticipatory bail applications. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the position in the case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto cited supra”.
Referring to the clarifications provided by the Supreme Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto (Supra), the Court explained that, once the roster changes, bail or anticipatory bail applications do not have to be listed before the Judge who previously handled them. Instead, they should be placed before the current roster Judge. Paragraph 13 of the same judgment further explains that the roster Judge hearing successive bail or anticipatory bail applications should give due consideration to the views of the previous Judge.
The Bench highlighted that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except through a procedure established by law. It further noted that the timely disposal of bail and anticipatory bail applications is a right guaranteed to the accused under the Constitution and should not be denied due to procedural difficulties in listing such applications.
The Court, therefore, answered the reference as follows:
“1) All bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the same learned Judge holding roster. Currently, in the High Court of Madras no such difficulty exist, as one learned Judge at the Principal Seat and another at the Madurai Bench are holding roster to hear bail/anticipatory bail applications.
(2) Upon a change of roster, successive bail/anticipatory bail applications, including consequential connected petitions, if any, shall be listed before the learned Judge holding the roster.
(3) The learned roster Judge, while dealing with the successive bail/anticipatory bail applications may give due weightage to the views expressed by the predecessor learned Judge who dealt with bail/anticipatory bail application arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number. However, in the event of differing views taken, reasons may be recorded…”
Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to list all bail and anticipatory bail petitions, including connected petitions before the judge holding the roster.
Cause Title: Y. Babu v. Inspector of Police (Crl.O.P. No. 31787 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates A.Manoj Kumar, T. Balachandran.
Respondent: SPP Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, APP A. Damodaran, APP Thilak
Intervenor: APP M.Mohammed Riyaz