Court reaffirms requirement for subsequent bail applications to be listed before the same Bench to ensure consistent judicial decisions.
In a pivotal ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, has reiterated the importance of maintaining consistency in judicial decisions by mandating that subsequent bail applications arising out of the same FIR be listed before the same Bench that handled previous applications. The judgment was delivered in the case of Dimpy Chugh v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the petitioner sought regular bail after a previous anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the same Bench.
The petitioner, Dimpy Chugh, represented by Advocate Mr. Vimal Tyagi, argued for the transfer of the bail application to a different Bench, citing concerns over potential bias given the prior dismissal. However, the court, supported by the State's Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manoj Pant, emphasized the Supreme Court's directives that aim to prevent conflicting or inconsistent orders in cases arising from the same FIR.
Justice Sharma highlighted that the practice of listing subsequent bail applications before the same judge ensures consistency and coherence in judicial proceedings. This practice was backed by previous Supreme Court judgments, including those in Sajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, which the court referenced during the hearing.
The court acknowledged the petitioner's apprehensions but advised that any request for a Bench change should be pursued through appropriate legal channels. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on April 15, 2026.
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity and consistency of legal processes, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and predictably across cases with similar factual backdrops.
Bottom Line:
Regular bail application in case arising from FIR - Subsequent bail applications ought to be listed before the same Bench/Judge who had earlier decided the previous bail application to avoid conflicting or inconsistent orders.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 80(2), 85, 3(5)
Dimpy Chugh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2866960
