Madras High Court
Y.Babu vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:609
CRL.O.P.No.31787 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CRL.O.P.No.31787 of 2024
and
CRL.M.P.No.113 of 2025
Y.Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Sulur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.39 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in Crime No.39 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Manoj Kumar
For Mr.T.Balachandran
For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
State Public Prosecutor
Assited by Mr. A. Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor and
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
CRL.O.P.No.31787 of 2024
Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Intervenor : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Introduction to the Reference:
This bench is called upon to answer the following reference made by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in an order dated
21.02.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.31787 of 2024:
“Whether the clarification issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar
Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court
[W.P.(Crl).No.55 of 2025, decided on 07.02.2025], is only
with regard to the listing of the applications filed by the
accused in the same FIR or is also with regard to the listing
of successive bail applications of an accused before the
roster Judge, even if the Judge who dealt with the earlier
application for bail/anticipatory bail is available?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
Background of the Context:
2. Reference has been made on account of line of Judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the observations made by the Apex
Court, and it necessitates this Court to consider the reference in order to
avoid inconsistency in dealing with bail/anticipatory bail petitions. Different
High Courts are following distinct procedures for listing of bail/anticipatory
bail petitions. Therefore, certain procedures being adopted by the one High
Court if applied to other High Courts, it results in an anomalous situation
and inconsistency in deciding the bail petitions have arisen. Therefore, it is
imminent to look into the march of law on the issue relating to listing of
bail/anticipatory bail petitions for hearing.
Relevant Precedents:
3. Initially, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another1, made an
observation in paragraph No.5 of the Judgment that “If successive bail
applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by
different Judges there would be conflicting orders and the litigant would be
pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the
credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in
issue and there would be wastage of Court’s time. Judicial discipline
1. (1987) 2 SCC 684
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is
available for orders”.
4. Perusal of the facts in the above case reveal that the criminal case
arose from and out of a single First Information Report (F.I.R) and in order
to avoid inconsistency in the matter of grant of bail/anticipatory bail
applications, the Apex Court made an observation. The said observation
was made in the context of the facts and need not be construed as a
direction to be followed universally by all the High Courts across the
Country.
5. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota
Subha Rao2, the Apex Court made certain observations to avert
inconsistency in dealing with the bail/anticipatory bail applications. Even in
the said case, while emphasizing the importance of personal liberty, the
Apex Court has not issued any direction to all the High Courts across the
Country.
6. In the case of M.Jagan Mohan Rao vs. P.V.Mohan Rao and
Another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of Shahzad
2. (1989) Supplementary (2) SCC 605
3. 2010 (15) SCC 491
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
Hasan Khan cited supra and made an observation that “Since the learned
Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter
should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such
cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same
Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not
available. We hope that the High Court will take notice of the Judgment
of this Court”.
7. In the case of Jagmohan Bahl and Another vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Another4, the Apex Cort in paragraph No.13 of the Judgment
reiterated that “the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer
for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the
successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial
decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is
adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no
sanction in law and definitely has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to
prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate
eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to decide the issue in
4. (2014) 16 SCC 501
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
the case of Sajid vs. State of Uttar Pradesh5. The three Judges Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Sajid’s case took a view that “we
have come across various matters from the High Court of Allahabad,
wherein matters arising out of the same FIR are placed before different
Judges. This leads to anomalous situation. Inasmuch as some of the
learned Judges grant bail and some other Judges refuse to grant bail, even
when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar. The Apex Court
further held “We find that it will be appropriate that all the matters pertaining
to one FIR are listed before the same Judge so that there is consistency in
the orders passed.”
9. Above observations / findings of the Apex Court are relating to the
bail/anticipatory bail applications in the High Court of Allahabad. The Three
Judges Bench directed the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, but
not issued any direction to all other High Courts across the Country.
10. In the case of Rajpal vs. State of Rajasthan6, reported in again
the Two Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made an
observation that “we find that it will be appropriate that all the matters
pertaining to one FIR are listed before the same Judge so that there is
5. (2023) SCC Online SC 1816
6. (2023) SCC Online SC 1714
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
consistency in the orders passed. The said orders to be communicated to
the Registrar (Judicial) of all the High Courts and they are directed to place
the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court for
consideration”. Observations in Sajid’s case and Rajpal’s case are mainly
relatable to bail/anticipatory bail applications arising from and out of same
FIR/Crime number.
11. In the case of Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that “this Court has already directed vide order passed
in Pradhani Jani vs. State of Odisha8, that all bail applications filed by the
different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge
except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been
transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system
needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders”.
Clarification by the Apex Court:
12. In the case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha
vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court and Another9,
significantly, the Apex Court took note of the observations made in line of
Judgments are causing inconvenience to various High Courts across the
7. (2024) 4 SCC 432
8. (2024) 4 SCC 451
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
Country in listing of bail/anticipatory bail applications, and clarified the
issues.
Analysis of the Apex Court's Clarification:
13. Reading of the Judgments referred above would reveal that in
some Judgments, observations are made and in some Judgments,
directions are issued. In few Judgments, directions are issued to list the
bail/anticipatory bail applications before the same Judge, if it relates to
same FIR/crime number. Certain observations made in other Judgments
are that successive bail/anticipatory bail applications are to be listed before
the same Judge, who initially dealt with the bail/anticipatory bail
applications. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the position in the
case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto cited supra.
14. In the said case, the ratio laid down in the cases of Sajid and
Rajpal’s are considered by the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.4 and 5,
which reads as under:
“4. The three Judges – Bench of this Court in SLP
(Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 has observed thus:
“7.We have come across various matters from
the High Court of Allahabad, wherein matters arising
out of the same FIR are placed before different Judges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
This leads to anomalous situation. Inasmuch as some
of the learned Judges grant bail and some other
Judges refuse to grant bail, even when the role
attributed to the applicants is almost similar.”
5. The said observations have been reiterated by a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.)No.15585 of
2023 titled as “Rajpal vs. State of Rajasthan.”
15. Considering the ratio laid down in previous Judgments,
clarifications are issued in paragraph Nos.10 to 14 as under:
“10. We, therefore, clarify that if in a particular High
Court, the bail applications are assigned to different single
Judge/Bench, in that event, all the applications arising out of
same FIR should be placed before one learned Judge.
11.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.
12.However, if on account of change of the roster, the
Learned Judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters
is not taking up the bail matters, the aforesaid directions
would not be applicable.
13.Further, we accept that in order to maintain
consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
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.
14.We find that if this is not followed and if the Judges
sitting in the Division Bench or thereafter taking up different
assignments are required to take up the applications arising
out of the same FIR, it may further delay the decisions in the
bail matters.”
Conclusion on the Legal Position:
16. The legal position on listing of bail/anticipatory bail applications
are now clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto
@ Shekhar Kushwaha cited supra. The clarifications issued in unequivocal
terms reiterates that all the bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of
the same FIR/crime number should be placed before one learned Judge.
This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the
learned Judge in different bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the
same FIR. However, if on account of change of the roster, the learned
Judge who was earlier dealing with the bail/anticipatory bail matters is not
taking up the bail/anticipatory bail matters, the aforesaid directions would
not be applicable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
Implications of the Apex Court's Clarification:
17. In view of the above clarifications in Paragraph No.12 upon
change of roster, the bail/anticipatory bail applications need not be posted
before the learned Judge, who decided the earlier bail/anticipatory bail
applications and it is to be listed before the learned Judge holding roster. In
paragraph No.13 it is further clarified that the learned roster Judge, who
hear the successive bail/anticipatory bail applications may give due
weightage to the views taken by the Predecessor Judge.
Importance of Timely Disposal of Bail Applications:
18. Justice Krishna Iyer's words liberty occupies a place on pride in
our socio-political order and who knew the value of liberty more than the
founding fathers of our Constitution, whose liberty was curtailed time and
again under Draconian Laws by the colonial rulers. That is why, they
provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. Thus, disposing of the bail/anticipatory bail applications
in time is a right ensured to an accused under Constitution, which need not
be denied on account of certain procedural difficulties in listing of
bail/anticipatory bail applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
Answer to the Reference:
19. In the opinion of this Court, the above clarifications would remove
inconsistency and to maintain consistency to a significant extent and
therefore, this Court is inclined to answer the reference as follows:
(1) All bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same
FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the same learned Judge
holding roster. Currently, in the High Court of Madras no such
difficulty exist, as one learned Judge at the Principal Seat and
another at the Madurai Bench are holding roster to hear
bail/anticipatory bail applications.
(2) 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.
(3) The learned roster Judge, while dealing with the successive
bail/anticipatory bail applications may give due weightage to the
views expressed by the predecessor learned Judge who dealt with
bail/anticipatory bail application arising out of the same FIR/Crime
Number. However, in the event of differing views taken, reasons
may be recorded.
(4) The Registry of the High Court of Madras shall ensure that all
bail/anticipatory bail petitions filed shall contain the following
informations;
(a) Number of previous bail/anticipatory bail petitions, if any;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
(b) Details of such petitions;
(c) Copies of the orders passed;
(d) A statement regarding the pendency of any petitions before
any Court.
Conclusion:
20. Accordingly, this reference stands answered. The Registry, High
Court of Madras both at the Principal Seat and the Madurai Bench shall list
all the bail/anticipatory bail petitions, including consequential connected
petitions before the learned Judge holding the roster for disposal.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
04.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ssi/Jeni
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sulur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ssi/Jeni
and
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 03:03:56 pm )
