The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of the Chief Justice’s roster authority in allocating bail matters, dismissing a petition that sought to mandate successive bail appeals before the same bench. While acknowledging the need for consistency in bail decisions arising from the same FIR, the Court held that structural judicial administration cannot be overridden by doctrinal preferences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged Instruction No. Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.04.2019 issued by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. This instruction directed that criminal appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, criminal revision applications under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and criminal appeals under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, be listed before the High Court according to the roster system - irrespective of whether an earlier bail application or appeal in the same matter had been heard by a different bench.
The petitioner contended that this practice violated the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 684 and Harjeet Singh @ Seeta v. State of Punjab (2022) 2 SCC 281, which mandated that successive bail applications by the same accused be heard by the same judge to ensure consistency and avoid contradictory orders.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 2024.
- Instruction Judicial/09/2019 replaced an earlier Circular dated 08.04.2002, which had directed successive bail applications to be placed before the same bench.
- The petitioner argued that appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Atrocities Act, though termed "appeals," are functionally equivalent to bail applications.
- He cited a coordinate bench judgment holding that bail applications under POCSO and Atrocities Act jointly should be treated as applications under Section 482/483 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Sections 438/439 CrPC).
- He alleged that treating similar bail-related proceedings differently based on nomenclature amounted to arbitrary discrimination.
- The petitioner sought quashing of Instruction Judicial/09/2019 and a direction to list all successive bail-related appeals before the same bench that decided the prior application.
Procedural History
- 08.04.2002: High Court issued Circular directing successive bail applications to be placed before the same bench.
- 19.06.2018: Instruction Judicial/05/2018 modified the listing procedure, introducing roster-based allocation.
- 25.04.2019: Instruction Judicial/09/2019 issued, mandating roster-based listing for appeals under Atrocities Act, JJ Act, and NIA Act.
- 2024: Petition filed under Article 226 challenging Instruction Judicial/09/2019.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice M.R. Mengdey.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that Shahzad Hasan Khan and Harjeet Singh establish a binding principle: successive bail applications must be heard by the same judge to prevent conflicting orders.
- Contended that appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Atrocities Act, Section 102 of the JJ Act, and Section 21(4) of the NIA Act are de facto bail applications.
- Asserted that treating these appeals differently from traditional bail applications under CrPC violates Article 14.
- Cited a coordinate bench decision treating POCSO-Atrocities joint bail applications as CrPC bail applications.
For the Respondent
- Submitted that the parameters for considering bail under CrPC differ fundamentally from those under special statutes like the Atrocities Act.
- Argued that the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, has exclusive authority to allocate cases.
- Maintained that Instruction Judicial/09/2019 was issued after due deliberation to ensure efficient case management.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration that the practice of listing successive bail appeals before different benches is illegal.
- Quashing of Instruction Judicial/09/2019.
- Direction to list all successive bail-related appeals under the Atrocities Act, JJ Act, and NIA Act before the same bench that decided the prior application.
- Alternatively, modification of Instruction Judicial/09/2019 to align with Supreme Court precedents.
The Legal Issue
Whether successive bail-related appeals under special statutes such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, must be placed before the same bench that decided the prior bail application, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shahzad Hasan Khan and Harjeet Singh, or whether the Chief Justice’s roster system overrides such a requirement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 684 and Harjeet Singh @ Seeta v. State of Punjab (2022) 2 SCC 281 to argue that successive bail applications must be heard by the same judge to avoid contradictory orders and ensure consistency. He contended that appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Atrocities Act are functionally identical to bail applications, as they seek release from custody pending appellate hearing. He further cited a coordinate bench judgment in a POCSO-Atrocities case, which treated such applications as CrPC bail applications, thereby mandating uniform treatment. He argued that differential treatment based on nomenclature violates Article 14 and undermines the Supreme Court’s directive on judicial consistency.
For the Respondent
The respondent countered that bail under CrPC and appeals under special statutes involve distinct legal standards. While CrPC bail is discretionary and fact-specific, appeals under the Atrocities Act involve statutory restrictions under Section 14A(2), requiring a higher threshold for release. The respondent emphasized that the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, has exclusive authority to allocate cases for administrative efficiency and to prevent forum shopping. The instruction was issued to manage workload and ensure equitable distribution of cases across benches.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of whether appeals under Section 14A(2) are equivalent to bail applications. Instead, it turned to the most recent authoritative pronouncement on the subject: Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2280). The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s clarification in that judgment:
"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. However, if on account of change of the roster, the learned judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters is not taking up the bail matters, the aforesaid directions would not be applicable."
The Court observed that the Supreme Court’s clarification explicitly limits the application of the "same judge" principle to cases where the same judge remains available to hear successive bail applications arising from the same FIR. It does not mandate that a different judge must recuse or that a new judge must be bound by a prior bench’s decision. The Supreme Court recognized the practical realities of roster systems and the impossibility of rigidly assigning cases to the same judge when judicial assignments change.
The Court further held that the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, has exclusive and non-justiciable authority over the allocation of cases. This principle is well settled in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Court cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India to affirm that judicial administration, including listing of matters, is an internal administrative function beyond judicial review.
The petitioner’s reliance on the POCSO-Atrocities coordinate bench judgment was noted but deemed inapposite, as that case dealt with classification of applications under CrPC, not the allocation of appeals under special statutes. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s arguments, while doctrinally appealing, were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent clarification and the settled principle of roster autonomy.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that Instruction Judicial/09/2019 is valid and within the administrative authority of the Chief Justice. No direction was issued to reassign successive bail appeals to the same bench. The Court affirmed that the Supreme Court’s guidance in Shekhar Prasad Mahto permits roster-based allocation, and where a judge who heard a prior bail application is no longer assigned to bail matters, the principle of consistency does not override administrative necessity.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Roster Authority Is Absolute
- Practitioners cannot challenge the listing of bail-related appeals before a different bench on grounds of inconsistency.
- Any petition seeking to enforce "same judge" allocation beyond the Supreme Court’s clarified scope will be dismissed.
- The Chief Justice’s roster decisions are immune from judicial review under Article 226.
Consistency Is Contextual, Not Absolute
- The principle of consistent bail decisions applies only when the same judge remains available to hear successive applications arising from the same FIR.
- If a judge rotates out of the bail roster, subsequent applications may be heard by any available judge without violating constitutional norms.
- Advocates must now argue consistency as a policy preference, not a legal entitlement.
Special Statutes Do Not Automatically Trigger CrPC Bail Rules
- Appeals under the Atrocities Act, JJ Act, or NIA Act are not automatically treated as CrPC bail applications.
- The nature of the statutory provision governs the procedural framework, not the nomenclature of the filing.
- Courts will continue to distinguish between statutory appeals and discretionary bail applications under CrPC.
