Bail pleas arising from Same FIR should continue before Same Bench to ensure Consistency, rules HC

In a sharp reminder against forum shopping in criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court recently confronted an unusual request from an accused seeking to have his regular bail plea heard by a different bench after his anticipatory bail had already been rejected in the same FIR. The Court examined whether litigants can sidestep an earlier adverse order by requesting a change of bench, raising larger concerns about judicial discipline and the risk of inconsistent bail orders in the same criminal case.

The controversy arose in a case stemming from an FIR registered at Begumpur Police Station in Delhi under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The accused moved a regular bail application after his earlier anticipatory bail plea had been dismissed by the same bench. However, counsel for the applicant urged the Court to direct that the matter be placed before another bench, arguing that since the Court had already expressed views while rejecting anticipatory bail, it might not be inclined to grant regular bail.

Opposing the request, the State argued that allowing such transfers would encourage litigants to seek different benches in the hope of securing favourable orders, thereby undermining judicial discipline and the administration of justice.

The Court firmly rejected the premise behind the request, pointing to directions of the Supreme Court that bail applications arising from the same FIR should ordinarily be heard by the same judge to avoid conflicting or inconsistent orders. Referring to multiple Supreme Court rulings including Sajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, the Court underscored that the Registry is bound to list such matters before the same bench when the judge continues to hold the criminal roster. Addressing the counsel’s submission directly, the Court noted that the request was effectively based on the assumption that the Court would again deny bail.

The Court observed that if the counsel believed the matter should be placed before another bench “since he is of the view that he will be unable to secure regular bail from this Court,” he was free to take steps available in law.

The matter has now been listed for further consideration on April 15.

Case Title: Dimpy Chugh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Case No.: Bail Appln. 1039/2026 & Crl.M.A. 7864-65/2026

Coram: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Vimal Tyagi,

Advocate for the Respondent:  APP Manoj Pant, Insp Rajeev Ranjan, SI Jagdeep Sandhu,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com