Subsequent Bail Pleas Arising From Same FIR Should Ordinarily Be Heard By Same Judge Who Rejected Earlier Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that subsequent bail applications arising from the same FIR should ordinarily be listed before the same judge who had rejected an earlier bail plea, in order to avoid conflicting or inconsistent orders.

“…. the Registry of this Court is bound to act in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is in compliance with the aforesaid position of law that matters arising out of the same FIR, particularly applications seeking bail, whether anticipatory or regular, are ordinarily listed before the same Bench/Judge who had earlier decided the previous bail application of the accused and who continues to hold the criminal roster,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The Court made the observation while hearing a regular bail application filed by an accused in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 80(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

At the outset, counsel for the accused submitted that the anticipatory bail plea filed earlier by the accused had earlier been dismissed on merits by the same Bench on October 31, 2025.

The counsel thus requested that the regular bail application be placed before another Bench. It was argued that since the Court had already taken a view on the merits of the allegations, it may not be inclined to grant bail now.

The State opposed the request, contending that Supreme Court precedents mandate that subsequent bail applications should ordinarily be listed before the same judge who dealt with the earlier plea.

The prosecution argued that allowing such transfers would encourage litigants to seek different benches in the hope of obtaining favourable orders, which would adversely affect the administration of justice.

During the hearing, the Court referred to directions of the Supreme Court emphasizing that matters arising from the same FIR, particularly bail applications, ought to be placed before the same judge to avoid conflicting orders. The Court also noted that the Registry is bound to follow such directions while listing matters.

However, the Court remarked that if the accused's counsel believes the matter should be placed before another Bench because he feels he may not be able to secure bail from Justice Sharma's Court, he will be free to take appropriate legal steps available in law.

“Nevertheless, if the learned counsel is of the view that the present matter ought to be placed before another Bench – since he is of the view that he will be unable to secure regular bail from this Court, which he clearly stated in the Court, as his anticipatory bail has already been dismissed by this Court – he may take appropriate steps as available to him in law,” the Court said.

The matter has now been listed for further consideration on April 15.

Title: DIMPY CHUGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Click here to read order