ADITYA AJAYKUMAR CHOKSIversusHONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 4253 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY                     SD/-

==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                   Yes          No
                                                                   ✔
==========================================================
                         ADITYA AJAYKUMAR CHOKSI
                                   Versus
                     HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                Date : 30/04/2026

                                   JUDGMENT


1.       By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: -


         “A. MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD and DECLARE that procedure
         and practice of NOT placing the Successive Bail filed under the
         nomenclature of Criminal Appeal, Criminal Revision Application or
         Writ Petition before the same Honourable Court/Bench/Coram is
         contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
         the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. reported
         as (1987) 2 SCC 684 and the full bench decision of this Hon'ble High
         Court passed in the case of Babubhal Bachubhai Bhabhor v. State Of


                                     Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




         Gujarat reported as 2004 SCC ONLINE GUJ 125 as well as dehors to
         the Circular dated 8.4.2002.

         B.     MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD AND DECLARE that
         Subsequent or Successive (a) Criminal Appeal/s filed U/S 14A(2) of the
         Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
         1989, (b) Criminal Revision Application filed U/S 102 of the Juvenile
         Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (c) Criminal Appeal
         filed U/S 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 against
         an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or
         refusing Ball shall be placed before the same Honourable Court /
         Bench / Coram which decided the earlier Bail and disposed of as
         withdrawn/rejected.

         ALTERNATIVELY

         AA MAY BE PLEASED TO pass any such other order/s or
         direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in aforesaid
         peculiar circumstances of the facts and law including but not limited to
         MODIFYING the Instruction No. Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.4.2019
         suitably in accordance with law of the Land.”

2.       The petitioner in person herein is a practicing advocate and has filed the
present       petition   being   aggrieved          by   the      instructions      bearing
No.Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.04.2019 whereby the then Hon’ble The Acting
Chief Justice had directed that criminal appeals filed under Section 14(A) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 against an order of the Special Court or the exclusive Special Court
granting or refusing bail, shall be placed before the Hon’ble Court as per the
roster irrespective of the fact that earlier criminal appeals or criminal misc.
applications filed prior to instruction No.Judicial/05/2018 dated 19.06.2018
came to be disposed of as withdrawn/rejected as the case may be by another
Bench. The petitioner in person submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its
judgments in cases of Shahzad Hasan Khan vs Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1613 and Harjeet Singh @ Seeta vs. State of
Punjab and Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 281, has directed that the
subsequent bail applications to be listed before the same Judge who decided the

                                      Page 2 of 6
   R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




earlier bail applications. Pursuant to those judgments, the respondent herein
had issued a Circular dated 08.04.2002 whereby it was instructed to list the
subsequent bail applications by the same accused before the same Judge who
decided the bail applications earlier. He further submitted that same analogy
would apply to the appeals filed under Section 14A (2) of the Atrocities Act as
though the nomenclature being criminal appeals, essentially those appeals are
essentially applications for bail only. He further submitted that the fundamental
principles with regard to bail carved out in several decisions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court would apply with equal force to the appeals under Section 14A (2)
of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the appeals under Section 14A (2) of the
Atrocities Act, the revision application under the Juvenile Justice Act and the
appeals arising out of proceedings for trial under the National Investigation
Agency Act, require no different treatment than the bail applications. On the
contrary, giving different treatment to such appeals would amount to
discrimination on the basis of nomenclature which is impermissible under the
law. He further submitted that listing the appeals under Section 14A (2) of the
Atrocities Act before a different Bench than the Bench which had decided the
earlier appeal amounts to unequal treatment which may result in miscarriage of
justice. He further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken
the view that the bail applications arising out of an offence registered under the
provisions of POCSO and Prevention of Atrocities Act jointly, is to be treated
as an application for bail under Section 482 or Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023
(Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C.). Therefore, when the application for bail
involving the provisions of POCSO and Prevention of Atrocities Act, is to be
treated as a bail application before this Court, the successive bail application
would be placed before the same Bench, which had decided the earlier
application. Whereas the successive appeal under Section 14A (2) of the
Prevention of Atrocities Act, will be placed before another Bench which would
amount to discrimination. He further submitted that the instruction issued by



                                    Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice referred to hereinabove, is contrary to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Shahzad Hasan
Khan (Supra). He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and to
quash and set aside the instructions dated 25.04.2019 and further direct the
respondent herein listing of successive criminal appeals filed under Section
14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, criminal revision applications filed under Section 102 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and criminal
appeals filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 against the orders of Special Court or the exclusive Special Court
granting or refusing bail to be placed before the same Bench which decided the
earlier proceedings.


3.       Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has taken this Court
through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and submitted that the
instructions dated 25.04.2019 were issued by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief
Justice after careful consideration and due deliberation. He submitted that the
bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of the BNSS,
2023) and the appeals filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be treated at
par as the parameters for consideration of both the proceedings are different.
He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present petition.


4.       Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The issue raised by the
petitioner in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Apex
Court, in its recent judgment in case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar
Kushwaha v. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Courts & Another
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2280 happened to consider a similar issue.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment has clarified its earlier judgment in



                                    Page 4 of 6
   R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




case of Rajpal Versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1714. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under: -


       “4.   The three judges- Bench of this Court in SLP(Crl) No.7203 of
       2023 has observed thus:

                “7. We have come across various matters from the High Court of
                Allahabad, wherein matters arising out of the same FIR are
                placed before different 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.”

       5.      The said observations have been reiterated by a two-Judge Bench
       of this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.15585 of 2023 titled as “Rajpal vs. State
       of Rajasthan”.

       6.     What this Court meant in passing the order dated 31.07.2023 was
       that when the bail matters are assigned to different Benches and when
       those bail applications arise out of the same FIR and if such applications
       are heard by different Benches, it leads to an anomalous situation,
       inasmuch as some of the benches grant bail whereas some of them take a
       different view.

       7.    However, it is to be noted that in many High Courts, the roster
       system is followed.

       8.      After a particular period, the assignment of the learned Judges
       changes. It is also quite possible that the learned Single Judge, who was
       earlier taking up the assignment of bail matters may in the subsequent
       roster be a part of the Division Bench.

       9.     We are, therefore, of the view that if the aforesaid directions is
       followed universally, it may lead to disruption of benches inasmuch as
       the learned judge who had initially heard the bail application of one of
       the accused, may have become a part of some Division Bench when a
       bail applications arising out of the same FIR is filed by another accused.

       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.


                                      Page 5 of 6
       R/SCR.A/4253/2024                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026




           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.”

  5.       The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, answer all the
  contentions raised in the present petition by the petitioner, and therefore, no
  further discussion as regards the contentions raised in the petition is required.


  6.       Moreover, as per the settled principle of law, the Hon’ble Chief Justice
  is the master of roster and the decisions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice as regards
  the listing of matters is final. The decisions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice with
  regard to listing of matters should not be the subject matter of legal scrutiny.
  Therefore, the present petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.


                                                                                           SD/-
                                                                                  (M. R. MENGDEY,J)
  RAVI OZA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAVI OZA(HCW0111), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/04/2026 15:22:22




                                                   Page 6 of 6