RAJPAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 12-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed as withdrawn

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1136 : 2023 INSC 1089
1136
CASE DETAILS
RAJPAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15585 of 2023)
DECEMBER 12, 2023.
[C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the concern expressed 
by the Court on the lethargy in following its earlier orders in the matter of 
dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
Judicial notice – Bail applications arising out of the same FIR – 
Placed before diff erent Judges leading to anomalous situation – Some 
of the Judges granting bail and some other Judges refusing to grant 
bail, even when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar 
– Earlier orders by this Court that it would 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 – However, the High Courts 
lethargic in following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with 
bail applications arising out of the same FIR:
Held: In view thereof, concern expressed by this Court on the lethargy 
in following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications 
arising out of the same FIR to avoid confl icting decisions – Issuance of 
direction to Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court to communicate 
this order along with a copy of its earlier order to the Registrar (Judicial) of 
all the High Courts. [Paras 3-6]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 6 WLC 58 (SC) 
– referred to.
1137
RAJPAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(Criminal) No.15585 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRLMTBA No.12009 of 2023.
Appearances:
Rishi Matoliya, H. D. Thanvi, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Mahendra Singh 
Inda, Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advs. for the  Petitioner.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, 
sought permission to withdraw this special leave petition.  Recording the 
said submission, this special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, 
but with the following observation touching the recurrence of a situation 
occurring despite the repeated orders of this Court made with a view to 
avert such situations.
2. On going through the pleadings in the special leave petition, it is 
evident that the case of the petitioner is founded on the claim of parity, 
in view of the factual position that his co-accused was granted bail by a 
Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench 
at Jaipur but his application for bail was rejected.  True that the impugned 
judgment would reveal that even after going through the order dated 
29.08.2023 passed in the case of co-accused by the Coordinate Bench, the 
Bench concerned took exception to it stating that the judgment of this Court 
in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 6 WLC 
58 (SC) was not taken into consideration. 
 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 any further. 
However, we have to reiterate the concern of this Court on the lethargy in 
following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications 
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
arising out of the same FIR to avoid confl icting decisions.  We shall not be 
understood to have said that at all circumstances co-accused in such cases are 
invariably entitled to parity and that such entitlement is certainly dependent 
on various relevant facts and factors. 
4. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 
as per order dated 31.07.2023, 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 diff erent 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. 
8. We fi nd 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.”
5. After making such observations, this 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.