Parallel Exercise of Bail Jurisdiction Against Judicial Discipline When Appeals Are Pending Before High Court

The appellants (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) were charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that on 18.11.2025, the appellants and others brutally attacked the defacto complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, in retaliation for his legal efforts to restore 190.74 acres of Panchami lands illegally occupied by the accused.

The appellants’ initial bail applications were dismissed by the PCR Court, Madurai, in January 2026.

While their appeals against these dismissals were pending before the High Court, the appellants moved fresh bail applications before the same Sessions Court (PCR Court), which were subsequently granted in May and June 2026 without the Sessions Court being effectively apprised of the pending High Court appeals.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline as articulated in Raja Elango v. State, which mandates that while the High Court and Sessions Court share concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC (now BNSS), the Sessions Court should refrain from exercising that jurisdiction if the High Court is already seized of the matter.

It relied on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana regarding the necessity of recording reasons and exercising judicial discretion cautiously in bail matters.

Interpretation of V.Vasanthakumar v. Chief Secretary and Rule 5(7) of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras Rules, 2017, which establish merit, legal acumen, and integrity as essential criteria for appointing Law Officers.

The Court observed that judicial discipline ensures the orderly administration of justice and prevents conflicting decisions.

The Court found that the appellants and their counsel failed to inform the Sessions Judge about the pending appeals, leading to an improper exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court bitingly critiqued the Special Public Prosecutor for filing voluminous 14-page written objections without effectively highlighting during oral arguments the material fact of the pending appeals.

The court linked this failure to the broader issue of non-meritocratic appointments of Law Officers, noting that the absence of objective criteria for District Court prosecutors—unlike the rules established for High Court officers in Vasanthakumar—undermines the protection of victims’ rights, especially in SC/ST Act cases.

Since the appellants had already been released on bail and the final report (charge sheet) had been filed as Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2026, the Court chose not to cancel the bail but closed the appeals as infructuous.

The Court issued a stern direction that the DSP’s field report regarding illegal quarrying on Panchami lands be placed before the trial court as evidence.

It further recommended that the State implement objective merit-based criteria (legal acumen, integrity, and professional standing) for appointing Public Prosecutors in District and Special Courts.