Roster Changes Exempts Same-Judge Requirement: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Listing Rule
|"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," the Bench said.
The Supreme Court has clarified that its previous directive requiring bail applications arising from the same FIR to be placed before the same judge will not apply in cases where roster changes prevent the earlier judge from handling bail matters.
The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acknowledged the practical difficulties that arise when a judge, after a roster change, is reassigned to a division bench and is no longer regularly hearing bail applications.
The Court observed that strict adherence to the earlier rule could lead to delays and disruption of bench assignments. "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," the Bench said.
The Court held, "If in a particular High Court, the bail applications are assigned to different Single Judges/Benches, then all applications arising out of the same FIR should be placed before one learned judge to maintain consistency in rulings. However, if due to a roster change, the judge who earlier handled bail matters is no longer assigned such cases, this direction will not apply."
The clarification comes in light of the Court’s ruling in Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan (2023), where it mandated that all bail applications linked to a single FIR should be heard by the same bench to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting decisions. However, given the periodic reassignment of judges in High Courts, the Supreme Court noted that such a rule might not always be feasible.
The Court further emphasized that any subsequent judge handling bail applications from the same FIR should give due weightage to the views expressed by the previous judge. "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," it said.
The Court directed the Registrar to circulate a copy of the order to all High Courts for implementation. "The Registrar (Judl.) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. 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," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court [Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 55/2025]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Vikram Singh (AOR), Vijay Kumar Pandey, Pragya Sharma, Udayan Sinha, Prakhar Prakash, Op Kharbanda, Hemant Mour
Click here to read/download the Order