Should Subsequent Bail Pleas Be Listed Before Roster Judge Even If Judge Who Heard Earlier Plea Is Present? Madras HC Refers To Larger Bench

Justice Sunder Mohan referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General which the high court said had held that where the roster system is followed in many High Courts, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge.

Justice Mohan was of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in the case was only a clarification with respect to the listing of bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not with regard to the subsequent bail applications filed by the same accused.

"Therefore, this Court is of the view that the clarifications of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be understood as one intended to clarify the well-settled directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the disposal of successive bail petitions," Justice Mohan said. 

The court thus disagreed with the decisions of two single judges of the High Court who had dismissed the bail applications of a particular accused and the second bail petition was filed and pending consideration before them, had directed the Registry to list those petitions before the roster Judge concerned.

Noting that "judicial discipline demands that the issue be referred to the larger Bench", Justice Mohan framed the following question for determination and directed the Registry to place the present order before the Chief Justice for getting appropriate orders to list it before a Larger Bench. The question reads:

“Whether the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court [WP(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?”

The question involved is with respect to the listing of subsequent bail applications and whether it should be listed before the same judge who had dealt with earlier petitions or before the judge who has the roster during the relevant time.

The judge was dealing with the bail application filed by one Y Babu. The earlier bail application was rejected by Justice CV Karthikeyan.

The court noted that as per the system followed in the Madras High Court, if a particular judge dismissed a bail application, the successive bail application/anticipatory bail petition would be listed before the same judge. However, since the court followed a roster system, the bail application of the accused in the same FIR would be listed before the roster judge even if another judge had dismissed the bail application of the other accused.

The judge noted that in 2023, the Supreme Court in Sajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh had noted a similar system in Allahabad High Court and directed the Registry to list all bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR before the same judge. In Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court reiterated the above observation and directed all the High Courts to follow the procedure to ensure consistency in the orders passed.

However, since the above two decisions were creating confusion in the High Courts following a roster system, the Supreme Court clarified the direction in Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, and said that where the roster system was followed, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge. If the judge who dealt with the earlier bail application becomes a part of a division bench after a roster change, then the subsequent bail application by another accused in the same FIR might get a delayed listing, as the said judge is not regularly hearing bail applications. In view of such difficulties, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran clarified that the rule for listing the bail applications before the same judge would not apply in such scenarios, where the previous judge is no longer hearing bail applications due to roster change.

Justice Sunder Mohan, however, noted that this clarification was only with respect to bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not subsequent bail applications by the same accused. The judge thus opined that the Supreme Court's clarification could not be understood as one intended to clarify the well-settled direction issued regarding the disposal of successive bail applications.

Since there was a difference of opinion regarding the position of law, the judge deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.Balachandran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Y Babu v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.31787 of 2024