Supreme Court Addresses Conflicting Bail Orders in Same FIR Cases: Rajpal vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) INSC 1089 (12 December 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 1089
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.

Can different judges of the same High Court pass conflicting orders on bail applications arising from the same FIR? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue, highlighting the need for consistency in judicial decisions, particularly in bail matters. This case arose when a petitioner’s bail application was rejected despite his co-accused being granted bail by another bench of the same High Court. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, expressed its concern over such conflicting decisions and issued directions to ensure consistency in handling such cases across all High Courts.

Case Background

The petitioner, Rajpal, sought bail, arguing that his case was similar to that of his co-accused, who had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. However, the petitioner’s bail application was rejected. The High Court bench that rejected Rajpal’s bail took exception to the order granting bail to the co-accused, noting that it did not consider the Supreme Court’s judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal. This discrepancy led to the petitioner approaching the Supreme Court, claiming parity with his co-accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after his bail application was rejected by the High Court, despite a co-accused in the same case being granted bail by another bench of the same court. The High Court bench that rejected the petitioner’s bail application had noted that the order granting bail to the co-accused did not consider the Supreme Court’s judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific statutes or provisions. However, it implicitly refers to the principles of judicial consistency and parity in the context of bail applications. The Supreme Court’s concern revolves around the need for uniform application of legal principles and precedents, especially when dealing with similar factual situations arising from the same FIR.

Arguments

The petitioner’s primary argument was based on the principle of parity. He contended that since his co-accused had been granted bail, he was also entitled to bail, given that their cases arose from the same FIR and involved similar factual circumstances. The petitioner argued that the High Court’s rejection of his bail application, despite the bail granted to his co-accused, was inconsistent and unjust.

The respondent, State of Rajasthan, did not make any specific arguments as the special leave petition was withdrawn. However, the High Court’s reasoning for rejecting the bail application was that the coordinate bench that granted bail to the co-accused did not consider the Supreme Court’s judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues for consideration, as the special leave petition was withdrawn. However, the implicit issue was the need for consistency in granting bail in cases arising from the same FIR.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier order in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, dated 31.07.2023, where a similar issue of conflicting bail orders in the High Court of Allahabad was addressed.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was the inconsistency in the orders passed by different benches of the same High Court in bail matters arising from the same FIR. The court emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions to avoid anomalous situations where similarly placed individuals receive different treatment. The court’s concern was also to ensure that all relevant judgments of the Supreme Court are considered by the High Courts while deciding the bail matters.

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the special leave petition, did not delve into the merits of the case. However, the Court emphasized the need for judicial consistency in bail matters. The Court highlighted the anomalous situations that arise when different judges of the same High Court pass conflicting orders on similar cases. The court also noted that the High Court had taken exception to the order granting bail to the co-accused for not considering the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal.

The Supreme Court reiterated its concern on the lethargy in following earlier orders in dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR to avoid conflicting decisions. The Court clarified that while parity is a relevant factor, it is not the sole determinant for granting bail and depends on various facts and factors.

The Supreme Court quoted its earlier order in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, where it had noted similar issues in the High Court of Allahabad, stating, “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.” The Court had also observed, “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.”

The Court, taking note of the recurrence of such situations in other High Courts, directed that its order, along with the order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, be communicated to the Registrars (Judicial) of all the High Courts. The Registrars were directed to place the orders before the Chief Justices of their respective High Courts.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Conflicting bail orders from different benches of the same High Court are a matter of concern for the Supreme Court.
• ✓ Consistency in judicial decisions, particularly in bail matters arising from the same FIR, is essential.
• ✓ High Courts must ensure that all relevant judgments of the Supreme Court are considered while deciding bail matters.
• ✓ The principle of parity is a relevant factor but not the sole determinant for granting bail.
• ✓ Matters pertaining to the same FIR should ideally be listed before the same judge to ensure consistency in orders.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to communicate the order, along with the order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, to the Registrars (Judicial) of all the High Courts. The Registrars were further directed to place these orders before the Chief Justices of their respective High Courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must ensure consistency in bail orders for cases arising from the same FIR, and that matters pertaining to the same FIR should be listed before the same judge. The Supreme Court has reiterated its previous stance on the issue and has now extended its directions to all the High Courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajpal vs. State of Rajasthan highlights the critical need for consistency in judicial decisions, particularly in bail matters. While the specific petition was withdrawn, the Court’s observations and directions aim to prevent conflicting orders from different benches of the same High Court in cases arising from the same FIR. This judgment underscores the importance of uniform application of legal principles and precedents and reinforces the need for High Courts to consider all relevant judgments of the Supreme Court.