Subsequent Bail Pleas Arising Out Of Same FIR Should Be Listed Before Roster Judge: Madras Hight Court Clarifies

Thus answering the reference, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran confirmed that if there was a change in the roster when the successive bail petition came up, the judge dealing with the successive application should give weightage to the views expressed by his predecessor judge who dealt with the previous application.

“All bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the same learned Judge holding roster. 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.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,” the court said.

The court directed the registry to ensure that all bail and anticipatory bail petitions filed in the High Court, both Chennai and Madurai benches, shall contain information relating to the number of previous bail/anticipatory bail petitions, details of the petitions, copies of the order passed in the previous petitions and a statement regarding pendency of any petition before any other courts.

The division bench observed that as per the clarification of the Supreme Court, all bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/crime number should be placed before the same judge to ensure consistency in the views taken by the judge in different bail/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR. The court noted that as per the clarification, if on account of a change in the roster, the judge who was earlier dealing with the bail/anticipatory bail matters is not taking up the bail/anticipatory bail matters, the direction of the Supreme Court would not apply.

Thus, the court noted that the petitions need not be posted before the judge who dealt with the earlier applications and could be listed before the judge holding the roster. The court, however emphasised that the roster judge who had taken up the subsequent bail/anticipatory bail petitions should give due weightage to the views expressed by the predecessor judge.

“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,” the court said.

Emphasising on an individual's personal liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed that disposing the bail petitions in a timely manner is a right ensured to an accused under the Constitution and such a right could not be denied on account of procedural difficulties in listing bail/anticipatory bail applications.

Thus, answering the reference, the court directed the Registry to list all bail petitions/anticipatory bail petitions before the judge holding the roster.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Manoj Kumar For Mr. T. Balachandran

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. A. Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. Mohammed Riyaz, (for intervenor)

Case Title: Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

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