The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from its Registry regarding the listing of two petitions arising from the same First Information Report (FIR) and impugned order before different Benches. The Court directed that the facts be placed before the Chief Justice of India to determine why the matters were not listed together and observed that the responsibility of the erring officer needs to be fixed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Arsheel @ Amaan against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated December 15, 2025, which had cancelled bail in Criminal Appeal No. 10391 of 2025.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, Arsheel @ Amaan, approached the Apex Court challenging the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, via its order dated December 15, 2025, had cancelled the bail granted to the accused parties.
When the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Court No. 15), the counsel for the petitioner brought to the Court’s notice that a connected matter involving a co-accused was already pending before another Bench of the Supreme Court.
Arguments Placed Before the Court
Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the present petition challenged the “same impugned order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.10391 of 2025.”
The counsel informed the Bench that a separate petition bearing SLP (Criminal) No. 880 of 2026, filed by a co-accused arising from the same order, had been listed before a Bench presided over by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
It was further submitted that in the connected matter listed before Justice Nagarathna’s Bench, notice had already been issued and the “operation of the impugned order has been stayed.”
Court’s Observations and Order
Taking note of the submissions, the Bench expressed concern over the administrative lapse in listing connected matters before different courts. The Court observed that the petition filed by the other co-accused, whose bail order was cancelled by the High Court via the same impugned judgment, was listed before a different combination of Judges.
Consequently, the Court directed that the present petition be listed before the Bench presided over by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, subject to obtaining an appropriate order from the Chief Justice of India.
In a stern direction regarding the Registry’s functioning, the Court ordered:
“The Registry is directed to place complete facts before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India that against the same impugned order passed by the High Court arising out of the same FIR, why two petitions filed before this Court have been listed before different Benches.”
The Court further stated:
“Responsibility of the guilty officer needs to be fixed.”
The matter was directed to be transferred to the appropriate Bench to ensure consistent adjudication of the connected appeals.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Arsheel @ Amaan v. State of U.P & Anr.
- Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1123/2026
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
