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

While answering a reference made by a single judge, a division bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that all successive bail applications/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the judge holding the roster.On February 21, Justice Sunder Mohan had referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available. The single judge had referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General holding 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. 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 ...

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers