Rajpal vs State Of Rajasthan
- SCC(2023) 17 SCC 396
- Neutral2023 INSC 1089
- SCR[2023] 16 SCR 1136
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where bail applications arise from the same FIR, all such matters pertaining to that FIR should be listed before the same Judge in the High Court to ensure consistency in the grant or refusal of bail, rather than having them distributed across different Judges which may result in anomalous outcomes where similarly situated co-accused receive divergent bail orders.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2023 INSC 1089 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 15585 OF 2023
RAJPAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this special leave petition. Recording the said submission, this special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. However, on going through the pleadings in the special leave petition, it is evident that the case of the petitioner is founded on parity in the sense that his co-accused was granted bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.
The impugned judgment would reveal that even after going through the order dated 29.8.2023 passed in the case of co-accused by the Coordinate Bench did not reveal that the judgment of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in 2022 (6) WLC 58 (SC).
2 3. In view of the grant of permission to withdraw the special leave petition, we do not think it necessary to delve into the matter further. However, we are of the view that the concern of this Court, in deciding bail applications arising out of the same FIR before different Benches of the High Court, which was deprecated by this Court earlier, has to be reiterated.
4. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP(Criminal)
No. 7203/2023 as per order dated 31.7.2023, took note of such a situation and observed as follows:-
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 3 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.
3 5. After making such observations, this Court issued a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to communicate the said order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Allahabad.
6. Now, taking note of the fact that such situations are occurring in different High Courts, we are of the view that a further direction is to be issued in that regard.
The Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar (Judicial) of all the High Courts and they are directed to place the same before the Chief Justice of the High Court for consideration.
..................,J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
..................,J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 12, 2023.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free