Arif Iqbal Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra
6_BA_4117_24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4117 OF 2024 Arif Iqbal Shaikh ...
Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 280 OF 2025 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4117 OF 2024 Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w. Mr. Sohail Ahmed for applicant. Mr. A. A. Naik, APP for respondent-State.
Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud a/w. S. Shah, Mr. Maniram R. Gaud and Mr. Usman Memon for first informant.
Mr. Shekhar Pawar, PSI, R.A.K. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE :
12th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :
.
The present bail application has been listed before this Court as this Court had decided the bail applications of two co-accused persons by orders passed on 02.08.2024 in Bail Application No.2886 of 2024 and on 10.09.2024 in Bail Application No.2909 of 2024. 2.
For the said reason, the Bench assigned for considering the bail application had passed order dated 09.01.2025, directing listing of the present application before the appropriate Bench, in the backdrop of the practice direction/notice dated 08.02.2024 issued in this regard.
3.
Recently on 07.02.2025, the Supreme Court has passed an order in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55 of 2025 (Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ S. Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:
2025.02.12 17:22:17 +0530 PRIYA KAMBLI Court and another), clarifying that even if the bail applications of co1/2
6_BA_4117_24.doc accused persons are decided by a particular Judge, the applications of other accused persons shall be listed before the Roster Judge and not before the Judge, who has dealt with the bail applications of coaccused persons. The relevant portion of order of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
"10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
14. We find that if this is not followed and if the judges siting in the Division Bench or thereafter taking up different assignments are required to take up the applications arising out of the same FIR, it may further delay the decisions in the bail matters.
15. The Registrar (Judl.) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts."
4.
In view of the aforementioned clarification issued by the Supreme Court, the present bail application shall now be listed before the appropriate Bench.
(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 2/2