Kerala High Court
Muhamed Salim vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2024
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar, Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 5668 OF 2024
CRIME NO.587/2024 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 4
1. STEPHY WATSON, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.K.M.JOSE, ARIKKADAN
HOUSE, ALOOR PO, ANATHADAM, THRISSUR NOW RESIDING AT
KALLOKADAN HOUSE, VELLANCHIRA, THRISSUR, PIN-680697.
2. K.M.JOSE, AGED 68 YEARS, KALLOKADAN HOUSE,
VELLANCHIRA, THRISSUR, PIN 680697.
3. LEELA JOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.K.M.JOSE, KALLOKADAN
HOUSE, VELLANCHIRA, THRISSUR, PIN-680697.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
2. PRATHIBA SHAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O SHAJAN, EDATHADAN
HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, ALOOR DESAM, CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR PIN-680697.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.MOHAMED SABAH,
SAIPOOJA, LIBIN STANLEY, SADIK ISMAYIL, R.GAYATHRI, M.MAHIN
HAMZA, ALWIN JOSEPH, BENSON AMBROSE., Advocates for the
petitioners and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the first respondent and of Sri.N.L.BITTO, Advocate for the
second respondent, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 6085 OF 2024
CRIME NO.5 OF YEAR 2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER(S)
1. MUHAMED SALIM, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI,
PATTAMARU VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAIPURAM PO THIRUVENGAPURA,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN-679308
2. MUHAMMED JABIR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O AHAMMAD KABEER,
THOTTEKATTIL HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERI, PULAMANTHOLE,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA PIN-679323.
RESPONDENT(S)
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SADIQALIM & MOHAMED SHAFI
M., Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the Court passed the
following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7990 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1660 OF YEAR 2023 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
SUDHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SURESH, ARIYARATH HOUSE,
KURUKKANPARA P.O., KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, KUNNAMKULAM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN & ANAND
KALYANAKRISHNAN, Advocates for the petitioner and of
Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and
Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondent, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7994 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1661 OF YEAR 2023 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
SUDHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SURESH, ARIYARATH HOUSE,
KURUKKANPARA P.O., KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, KUNNAMKULAM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN & ANAND
KALYANKRISHNAN, Advocates for the petitioner and of
Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and
Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondent, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8219 OF 2024
CRIME NO.880 OF 2024 OF VADAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED
KARTHIK, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O NATARAJAN, 19A, RAJIV
GANDHI NAGAR, 3RD STREET KNP COLONY, CHANDIRAPURAM,
VTC, THIRUPUR, TC MARKET P.O, TAMILNADU, PIN-641604.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKARA POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE PIN-673101.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SUSMITH KUMAR T.D,
JAYKAR.K.S, VANADAN A, C.SIVADAS & K.P.MUHAMMAD ARIF.,
Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the respondents, the Court passed the
following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:6:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8744 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1010 OF 2024 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2
MUHAMMED JISHAD O, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RASAK O,
ONGALLOOR, VENGA, KOTTOPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-
678583.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
2. MOHAMMED YOUNUS.V.V, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMADALI,
VARIATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTOPPODAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-
678583. IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL SECOND
RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2024 IN CRLMA
2/2024 IN BA.8744/2024.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of Sri.NIREESH MATHEW, Advocate
for the petitioner and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the first respondent, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8859 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1173 OF 2024 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
REFEEQUE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O/SHAMSUDHEEN,
THANDANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA P.O.,
N.PARAVUR, PIN-683522.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition an this Court's order dated 11.12.24
upon hearing the arguments of Sri.FAISAL M K, Advocate for
the petitioner and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the respondent, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:8:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9018 OF 2024
CRIME NO.688 OF YEAR 2024 OF FORT POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
RAJESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SASI KOLLOOR THOTTUVARAMBIL
VEEDU KANNAMOOLA VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
695035.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition and this Court's order dated
11.12.2024, upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.RAJEEV,
V.VINAY, M.S.ANEER, PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH & ANILKUMAR C.R.,
Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the Court passed the
following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:9:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9669 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2437/2023 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED
BINU AKHIL, AGED 28 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE,
ALINCHUVADU, VENNALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682028.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & INVESTIGATION OFFICER
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,
PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682025.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition and this Court's order dated
11.12.2024, upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.Y.VINOD
KUMAR & D.MINI RAJAN., Advocates for the petitioner and of
Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and
Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondents, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:10:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Monday, the 23rd day of December 2024 / 2nd Pousha, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9800 OF 2024
CRIME NO.668 OF YEAR 2024 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
IBRAHIM, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O IIMUDHEEN ARAKKAL HOUSE,
ELLAVALLY CHAVAKKAD TALUK THRISSUR PIN-680511.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION
THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680511.
This Bail Application again coming on for orders upon
perusing the petition and this Court's order dated
11.12.2024, upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.RAJEEV,
V.VINAY, M.S.ANEER, SARATH K.P., DIPA V., ANIL KUMAR C.R. &
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN, Advocates for the petitioner and of
Sri.ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and
Sri.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondents, the Court passed the following:
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:11:-
"C.R."
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
&
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. Nos.5668, 6085, 7990, 7994, 8219,
8744, 8859, 9018, 9669 & 9800 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2024
ORDER
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
These cases have been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to a reference by a learned Single Judge seeking clarification on the procedure to be adopted by the Registry for posting successive or subsequent bail applications arising out of the same crime.
2. Recently, in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [(2024) 4 SCC 432] and Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455), it has been observed that all matters arising from the same Crime/FIR must be placed before the same Judge in order to avoid inconsistent or contradictory decisions. Though the said directions pertained to the respective courts concerned, the said judgments were directed to be circulated to all High Courts for correction of the system, wherever required. Due to the aforesaid observations, the Registry of this Court has been placing all successive and subsequent B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:12:- bail applications, of the same accused and even that of co-accused in both anticipatory and regular bail applications, before the same Judge who had considered any type of applications earlier, relating to the same crime.
3. The learned Single Judge before whom all bail applications were being posted, expressed a doubt after mentioning a poignant situation. After referring to the factual difficulties, it was observed that the practice of placing bail applications of all types before the same Judge who had initially considered any one application arising out of the same crime, has started choking the present roster of work allotted to the learned Judge. Since the reference order explicitly elucidates the situation, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion, as below:
10. My understanding of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka and Pradhani Jani's cases and the Standing Orders of the Orissa High Court is that applications for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are to be treated as a separate class.
In other words, just because a Judge has heard an application for pre-arrest bail while he was in the bail application roster, the same shall not be a reason to post all subsequently filed applications for regular bail by the same accused or a co-accused in the same crime before the same Judge. Likewise, if there was no meritorious consideration of the earlier application, which was dismissed as withdrawn or as infructuous, the procedure of posting the applications before the same Judge does not arise. If such a procedure is adopted, it would choke the present roster of the Judge. I say this because I was on the roster for bail applications B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:13:- from January 2024 to November 2024. During the above period, I had passed approximately 8500 orders, of which an average of 30 to 40 per cent of the applications were dismissed. If all the second applications of the different species are posted before me, like the present batch of the cases, it would undoubtedly paralyse my functioning in the present roster, i.e., the Miscellaneous and Police protection/harassment jurisdictions. Furthermore, as the bail applications affect the personal liberty of the accused, they are to be disposed of within 2 to 4 weeks, as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Hence, they have to be given top priority."
4. Based on the above observations, the learned Single Judge raised the following query:
"11. As a cloud regarding the posting of the subsequently filed applications of the above nature has arisen, I am of the view that the matter is to be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice to decide the procedure to be followed or to frame a Standing Order in this regard."
5. Thereafter, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice has placed the matter for our consideration.
6. We have heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The primary question to be answered is whether in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka's case (supra) and Pradhani Jani's case (supra), is it obligatory for the Registry of this Court to place all bail applications of all types arising from the same crime, before the same Judge who had at some point B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:14:- in time considered any application arising out of the same crime. Another question that arises as a corollary to the above is the effect of withdrawing an earlier application for bail without considering anything on the merits vis-a-vis the subsequent applications.
8. The answers to the above questions lie in the meaning to be ascribed to the directions in the various judgments of the Supreme Court. At this juncture, we wish to place on record that we are aware that this Court cannot interpret or clarify the judgment of the Supreme Court. However, since the question has been placed for our consideration, we only intend to explain the position in the light of the circumstances mentioned in the reference order.
9. The problem of successive bail applications of the same accused being posted before different Judges was noticed in the decision in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another [(1987) 2 SCC 684]. It was observed that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court being at stake. Later, in the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao [1989 Supp (2) SCC 605], the aforesaid decision was followed and further observed that the practice of placing subsequent applications before B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:15:- the same Judge will bring in judicial discipline and consistency.
10. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision in M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao and Another [(2010) 15 SCC 491], wherein it was observed that successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance. In another judgment in Jagmohan Bahl and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2014) 16 SCC 501] the Supreme Court considered a case where anticipatory bail rejected by a Sessions Judge was later granted by another Sessions Judge. In that context, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the subsequent application ought to have been placed before the same Sessions Judge who had considered the earlier application.
11. The above decisions were all noticed by a Full Bench of this Court in Firos Ali v. State of Kerala [2016 (4) KLT 150] and laid down exhaustive guidelines as follows:
"a) The subsequent bail application by the same accused will be entertained only if there is change of circumstance for filing such application.
b) Subsequent bail application filed by the same accused shall be heard by the learned Judge who has considered and passed orders on the earlier bail application / applications in the same crime.
c) The application filed by the co-accused may be considered and ordered by any other learned Judge having roster during the relevant point of time and such application need not be placed before the Judge who passed orders earlier on the B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:16:- application filed by another accused.
d) The subsequent bail application filed by the same accused in the same crime during Onam and Christmas holidays may wait for orders till the end of the said holidays, in case, if the learned Judge who has passed orders on the earlier application is not available for orders during those holidays or if he is not designated as a Vacation Judge.
e) In case if the subsequent bail application is filed by the same accused during summer vacation and if the learned Judge who passed earlier order is not available for orders or if he is not a designated Vacation Judge, the memo filed under Section 8 of the High Court Act on behalf of the accused -
applicant be listed before the learned Judge nominated to hear the bail applications during the summer vacation. However, the fact that an earlier bail application in the same crime is dismissed is to be brought to the notice of that Vacation Judge. The factor of listing the matter during summer vacation or refusing to do so can be decided by the learned Vacation Judge sitting in summer vacation.
f) If the learned Judge who passed order on the earlier bail application filed by the same accused in the same crime is sitting in the Division Bench, the subsequent application for bail may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Registry so as to enable the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to make necessary arrangement to have a special sitting of the said learned Judge.
g) The counsel for the accused who is filing the subsequent application for bail in the same crime shall mention in the application seeking bail about the disposal of earlier bail application filed by this very accused. A copy of the order passed on such application earlier in respect of the same accused shall also be produced along with the second or successive bail applications.
B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:17:-
h) It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor concerned to bring to the notice of the Court, as far as possible, about the earlier bail application filed by the same accused as well as about any application filed by the co-accused in the same crime and the result thereof, either by filing the statement of objections or at least at the time of arguments on the bail application."
12. The above guidelines were working effectively in Kerala and covered every aspect regarding subsequent or successive bail applications. Subsequent bail applications, in fact, were interpreted to mean, the application of the same type and cases were placed before the appropriate Judge, as the case may be.
13. While so, in Sajid v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1816), the Supreme Court had observed, while dealing with a case that arose from Allahabad that:-
"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. 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.
8. 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" (emphasis supplied)
14. Consequent to the above judgment, in Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1714) after noticing that the situation in Allahabad is occurring in other High Courts as well, the B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:18:- Supreme Court directed the order to be communicated to the Registrars of all the High Courts, to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for consideration.
15. In the meanwhile, in Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha (supra), while referring to the practice that was prevalent in Odisha, it was observed by the Supreme Court that it came across orders passed by three different Judges in the applications of various accused arising out of the same FIR and such a practice was found to lead to anomalous situations since some accused were granted bail while some having similar role, were refused bail.
16. Thereafter in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (supra), directions were issued as follows:
"20. In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:
(1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.
(2) Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made.
This court has already directed vide order passed B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:19:- in Pradhani Jani's case (supra) 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.
In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.
(3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
(4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer / any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:20:- applications or other proceedings in the same case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court."
17. In Kusha Duruka's Case (supra), it was finally directed that the said judgment be sent to all the High Court to be placed before the Chief Justices for correction of the system, wherever required.
18. On an appreciation of the observations in the above-referred decisions, it is evident that the Supreme Court had only stated that "the matters arising out of the same FIR should be placed before the same Judge" and corrections were to be carried out wherever required. The above observation has led to the present reference since it needs to be ascertained whether the expression "matters arising from the same FIR" includes both applications for anticipatory bail as well as regular bail.
19. The common thread seen in all the judgments referred to above is the maintenance of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. The principle that bail applications filed subsequently shall be considered by the Judge who considered it earlier is to avoid the anomalous situation of inconsistent decisions on such applications arising out of the same matter. If the learned Judge, who declined B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:21:- bail earlier, is available to hear the subsequent application, to avoid anarchy, and unpredictability and also to instill confidence in the system, it is necessary that the same Judge hears the subsequent applications also. However, the said requirement cannot be extended to every type of application, without bearing in mind the distinctions thereon.
20. While observing that successive or subsequent bail applications should be heard by the same Bench itself, there is no observation in any of the decisions that the said principle should be applied to all types of applications. The reason for not including such a direction is obvious. "All matters" can only mean all matters of the same nature. The distinction between anticipatory bail applications and regular bail applications being significant, such distinct applications cannot fall within the term 'all matters'.
21. An application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') or section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') is different from an application for regular bail filed under section 439 Cr.P.C or 483 BNSS, even if it arises from the same crime. The consideration for grant or otherwise of an application for anticipatory bail is wholly different from that of a regular bail. Dismissal of an application for anticipatory bail cannot entail dismissal B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:22:- of an application for regular bail. The anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same crime form one stream while the regular bail applications form a different stream altogether. Therefore the applications for anticipatory bail and the applications for regular bail are two separate and distinct categories, that run parallel to each other. They cannot be treated as falling within the same class. Therefore, when the Supreme Court observed "all matters arising out of the same crime", it can only mean "all matters relating to the particular type of application arising out of the same crime". If a contrary view is adopted, the word "all matters" would include even petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C, revision petitions etc., apart from bail applications. Therefore, the word "all matters" mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be viewed dehors the type of application.
22. It is also appropriate at this juncture to refer to the decision in Rahul Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020 Cr.LJ 1380) wherein the Chhattisgarh High Court had observed that rejection of the anticipatory bail of an accused by a learned Judge will not make it obligatory to have the application for regular bail filed by the said accused under section 439 Cr.P.C to be listed before the very same learned Judge and it could be posted before the Judge who is dealing with such matters as per the roster. We respectfully agree with the B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:23:- said conclusion.
23. Thus, we are of the view that an application for anticipatory bail and an application for regular bail, though arising out of the same Crime/FIR, are separate and distinct and cannot be treated as the same matter for the purpose of identifying the roster before whom it ought to be placed.
24. Apart from the above, withdrawing/not pressing of applications for anticipatory bail or regular bail will have to be generally regarded as dismissal after consideration of the application on merits. However, in the absence of any consideration on merits of the earlier application, the same Judge cannot be obligated to consider all the successive or subsequent applications, even if it be of the same nature. If the earlier application of the same nature was dismissed as withdrawn/ not pressed, the Registry shall first place it before the Judge who disposed off the earlier application. The discretion to decide whether the application was considered on merits before the dismissal as withdrawn or not pressed, would be upon the Judge concerned. If the Judge who passed orders of withdrawal or dismissal as not pressed, is of the view that there was no consideration on merits of the earlier application, the said Judge will be at liberty to direct the Registry to place it before the Judge as per the prevailing roster.
25. In the result, we answer the reference as follows: B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:24:-
(i) The application for anticipatory bail and application for regular bail though arising out of the same Crime/FIR, are separate and distinct types of applications.
(ii) Consideration of an application for anticipatory bail by a learned Judge on merits will make it obligatory for the Registry to place all anticipatory bail applications of all accused arising from the same Crime/FIR to be placed before the very same Judge itself.
(iii) The consideration of a regular bail application of any one accused in a crime on merits, will obligate the Registry to place all successive or subsequent regular bail applications of all the accused in the same crime before the same learned Judge itself.
(iv) The dismissal of an anticipatory bail application will not obligate the Registry to place the regular bail applications before the same Judge and the latter can be placed on the basis of the roster on the date of filing for consideration of the application.
(v) Consideration of an application means, consideration on merits. Withdrawing/not pressing of applications for anticipatory bail or regular bail will have to be generally regarded as dismissal after consideration of the application on merits.
(vi). However, if the earlier application of the same nature was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed, the Registry shall first place it before the Judge who disposed off the earlier application who shall B.A No.5668/24 & Conn. Cases -:25:- have the discretion to decide whether the earlier application was considered on merits before it was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. If the Judge who passed the orders of withdrawal/not pressed, is of the view that there was no consideration on merits of the earlier application, the said Judge will be at liberty to direct the Registry to place it before the Judge as per the prevailing roster.
(vii) The directions of the Full Bench in Firos Ali's case (supra) except direction No. (C) therein, will continue to remain, in view of the observation in Kusha Duruka's case (supra).
The Registry shall immediately place these bail applications for consideration on merits before the respective learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps