In a crucial ruling aimed at ensuring judicial consistency in bail matters, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that all bail applications arising from the same First Information Report (FIR) should ideally be listed before the same judge. However, the Court introduced an important exception: if a judge’s roster has changed, this rule does not apply. The decision was pronounced in Shekhar Prasad Mahto alias Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court & Another (W.P.(Crl.) No. 55/2025), where the petitioner challenged the listing of his bail application before a different judge despite prior Supreme Court directions on the issue.
The ruling addresses concerns over inconsistent bail orders when multiple judges hear different applications from the same FIR. The Court emphasized that ensuring uniformity in judicial decisions is essential to avoid contradictions but acknowledged the practical difficulties posed by the periodic changes in judicial rosters.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a situation where the petitioner’s bail application was placed before a different judge than the one who had earlier decided a co-accused’s bail plea in connection with the same FIR. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh (AOR), Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Mrs. Pragya Sharma, Mr. Udayan Sinha, Mr. Prakhar Prakash, Mr. O.P. Kharbanda, and Mr. Hemant Mour, argued that such a practice violated previous Supreme Court rulings, which mandated that all bail matters linked to the same FIR be decided by the same judge to ensure consistency.
The petition was heard by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal question before the Court was whether bail applications from the same FIR must always be heard by the same judge or whether there could be exceptions, particularly in cases where judicial rosters change over time.
The Supreme Court had previously observed in SLP(Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 and SLP(Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023 (Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan) that assigning such applications to different judges could lead to contradictory bail orders, causing an “anomalous situation” where some accused get bail while others do not, despite similar charges and circumstances.
In the present case, the petitioner argued that the High Court of Jharkhand had failed to follow these directions and that his bail plea should have been placed before the same judge who had earlier heard a co-accused’s application.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
While reiterating its previous stance on the necessity of uniformity in bail orders, the Supreme Court made an important clarification:
1. General Rule – Bail applications arising from the same FIR should be placed before the same judge to maintain consistency in judicial rulings.
2. Exception in Case of Roster Changes – If the judge who previously heard the matter has been reassigned to a different bench due to a roster change, then this requirement does not apply.
3. Judicial Discretion in Subsequent Bail Matters – If a new judge hears a bail plea due to a roster change, they should give due weightage to the views expressed by the previous judge who handled related bail applications.
4. Avoiding Delays in Bail Decisions – The Court noted that strict adherence to this rule without considering roster changes could lead to delays in deciding bail matters, defeating the purpose of expeditious justice.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court underscored the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, stating:
“If bail applications arising from the same FIR 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.”
At the same time, recognizing the practical challenges of roster changes, the Bench clarified:
“If the judge who initially heard the bail matter has been reassigned to a different division, the requirement of placing all bail applications before the same judge does not apply.”
The Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to forward a copy of the order to all High Courts to ensure uniform implementation of this ruling.
