The Supreme Court recently provided clarification on its previous rulings, which required that bail applications stemming from the same FIR be heard by the same bench or judge. This clarification acknowledges the practical challenges that arise due to changes in the court roster.

If the judge who previously handled a bail application is assigned to a division bench after a roster change, the subsequent bail application by another accused in the same FIR may face delays in listing, as the judge would no longer be regularly hearing bail matters.

Considering these challenges, the division bench comprising, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran clarified that the rule requiring bail applications from the same FIR to be listed before the same judge would not apply if the previous judge is no longer handling bail matters due to a roster change.

In Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court ruled that such bail applications should be assigned to a single bench to prevent conflicting orders on the same FIR.

However, since High Courts follow the roster system, judicial assignments change periodically. It is also possible that a judge who previously handled bail matters as a Single Judge may later be assigned to a Division Bench in a subsequent roster.

Therefore, the bench noted that strictly adhering to the rule of listing bail applications before the same judge could disrupt bench assignments and cause delays. To address this concern, the bench provided the following clarifications:

"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.

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.

The Court further stated that the judge hearing subsequent bail applications may consider the views expressed by the judge who previously dealt with bail matters arising from the same FIR. 

Additionally, the registrar was instructed to circulate a copy of the order to all High Courts.

Case : Shekhar Prasad Mahto v The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court