Successive bail-related appeals under special statutes follow the current roster rather than returning to the same Bench.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the validity of Instruction No. Judicial/09/2019 dated 25.04.2019 issued by the High Court.

This instruction directed that successive criminal appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, should be listed as per the roster, rather than before the same Bench that decided previous bail applications in the same matter.

The petitioner contended that such appeals, along with revisions under the Juvenile Justice Act and NIA Act, should follow the same practice as successive bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (now Section 483 BNSS), which are directed to the same Bench to avoid conflicting orders.

Whether successive criminal appeals under the SC/ST Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and NIA Act must be placed before the same Bench that decided earlier bail/disposed of earlier proceedings.

Whether the administrative instruction dated 25.04.2019 is contrary to established judicial precedents regarding the listing of successive bail applications.

The court primarily assessed the "Master of Roster" principle, affirming that the Chief Justice has the final authority over the assignment of cases.

The court applied the precedent set in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) regarding the listing of subsequent bail applications before the same judge.

The court primarily relied on the recent clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court (2025), which holds that the rule of listing before the same Bench applies only if the judge is still taking up bail matters as per the current roster.

The court reasoned that the issue raised by the petitioner was no longer res integra (settled) following the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhar Prasad Mahto.

While the Supreme Court acknowledged that listing matters from the same FIR before different Benches can lead to "anomalous situations," it clarified that this direction cannot be followed "universally".

The court observed that roster systems are dynamic; a judge who heard an initial application might now be on a Division Bench or handling a different assignment. Therefore, the requirement to list before the same judge is subject to the current roster.

The court emphasized that administrative instructions issued by the Chief Justice regarding the listing of matters are not typically subject to legal scrutiny, as the Chief Justice is the master of the roster.

The court concluded that while consistency is desirable, the administrative necessity of the roster system takes precedence, and if a judge’s assignment has changed, successive appeals need not be placed before them. No relief was granted to the petitioner.