The Madras High Court has clarified that all successive bail and anticipatory bail applications arising from the same FIR must be listed before the judge holding the roster at the time. This decision aims to maintain judicial consistency and prevent contradictory rulings in bail matters.
Background of the Case
A division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekaran issued this clarification while answering a reference made by a single judge on February 21, 2025. Justice Sunder Mohan had raised the question of whether subsequent bail applications should be placed before the roster bench, even if the judge who previously heard the bail plea was available.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Orders Centre to Lift Ban on Ananda Vikatan's Website Over Modi-Trump Cartoon
The issue gained prominence following the Supreme Court's ruling in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General, where it was held that High Courts following the roster system must ensure that all applications linked to the same FIR are placed before the same roster judge.
Court's Observations and Ruling
The division bench ruled that successive bail petitions should be listed before the judge currently holding the roster. However, if there has been a roster change, the new judge should give due weight to the views expressed by their predecessor. The ruling emphasized:
Read Also:- Matrimonial Dispute Alone Cannot Prove Husband's Guilt: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Wife's Death Case
"All bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the same learned Judge holding roster. 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."
Additionally, if the new judge holds a differing view from the previous judge, they must provide recorded reasons for the variance.
Supreme Court’s Position on Bail Listing
The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of consistency in bail decisions. Previous rulings in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, and Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi) have underscored the necessity of listing successive bail applications before the same judge.
Read Also:- Madras High Court: Alleged Adulterer Must Be Given a Chance to Defend in Divorce Cases
In Sajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court observed that placing bail applications of different accused in the same FIR before different judges led to anomalies where some accused were granted bail while others were denied, despite similar allegations.
"We find that it will be appropriate that all matters pertaining to one FIR are listed before the same Judge so that there is consistency in the orders passed."
Implementation Directives by the Madras High Court
To ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Madras High Court has directed its registry to ensure that all bail and anticipatory bail petitions contain:
- The number of previous bail/anticipatory bail petitions filed,
- Details of those petitions,
- Copies of the orders passed in previous petitions,
- A statement regarding the pendency of any similar petitions before any other courts.
The High Court further clarified that if a change in the roster occurs, the subsequent bail petition should be listed before the judge currently holding the roster, rather than the judge who had dealt with the previous applications.
Ensuring Timely Disposal of Bail Applications
The court emphasized that personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, requires that bail petitions be disposed of promptly. Procedural delays in listing bail matters should not become a barrier to an accused's right to seek relief.
"Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order, and the right to seek bail is an essential aspect of personal freedom. Procedural constraints should not deny an individual this fundamental right."
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Manoj Kumar For Mr. T. Balachandran
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. A. Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. Mohammed Riyaz, (for intervenor)
Case Title: Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police
Case No: CRL.O.P.No.31787 of 2024
