RAJPAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Sanjay Kumar
Judgment Date: 2023-12-12
Court Decision / Holding: SLP dismissed as withdrawn.
Final Disposition: SLP dismissed as withdrawn.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajpal

Respondents

State of Rajasthan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rishi Matoliya
• H. D. Thanvi
• Nikhil Kumar Singh
• Mahendra Singh Inda
• Sumati Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision addresses the management of bail applications arising from the same FIR and the risk of inconsistent outcomes when different judges grant or deny bail in similar circumstances. The petitioner, Rajpal, challenges the approach in Rajasthan where his co-accused, in a related bail matter, was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench while Rajpal’s own application was rejected. The Court recalls its earlier directive in SLP (Criminal) No.7203 of 2023 that all matters arising out of one FIR should ordinarily be listed before the same judge to ensure consistency in orders and parity in treatment. Despite these directions, the Court notes repeated instances of lethargy in following them across High Courts, resulting in potential conflicting decisions. Accordingly, this petition, though withdrawn, yields a significant reaffirmation: the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is to communicate the order and the prior directive to the Registrar (Judicial) of all High Courts, with the Chief Justices of those High Courts to place the matter before them for action. The Court emphasizes that parity in bail is not absolute and depends on relevant facts, that the Court’s earlier guidance must be observed, and that the current petition is dismissed as withdrawn with these observations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Rajpal contends that parity with the co-accused who received bail from a Coordinate Bench should govern the disposition of his bail application, or at least require consistent treatment across matters arising from the same FIR. He submits that the role attributed to him was similar to that of the co-accused and that the refusal to grant bail in his case while bail was granted to the co-accused violates the principle of parity and undermines trust in the process. He relies on the Court’s earlier guidance that all bail applications arising from one FIR should be listed before the same Judge to maintain uniformity and avoid conflicting decisions. He seeks parity and a fair assessment of his bail as per the comparative circumstances, urging the Court to ensure that future bail orders respect the prior directive and promote predictable outcomes. The petition, while withdrawn, underscores his concern about inconsistent practice and reinforces the need to adhere to the Court’s policy of consolidating bail matters. The petitioner’s stand is anchored in the principle that the treatment of similarly situated individuals should be substantially alike, subject to factual distinctions recognized by law.

Contentions of Respondents

Not expressly stated in the provided excerpt; the decision concentrates on compliance with the Court’s prior directions and the consistency of bail orders across matters arising from the same FIR.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal	(2022) 6 WLC 58 (SC)	Mentioned Only	The judgment references the Mohit Aggarwal case and notes it was not taken into consideration in the related order, thus it is cited for context rather than directly applied or distinguished.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1136 : 2023 INSC 1089** ## **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. 1136 RAJPAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1137 ## **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 Court issued a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to communicate the said order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Allahabad. **6.** Now, taking note of the fact that such situations are occurring in other High Courts as well, we are of the view that the Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court be directed to communicate this order along with a copy of the order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 to the Registrar (Judicial) of all the High Courts. On their receipt, they shall place the orders before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts. **Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain** **SLP dismissed as withdrawn.**