Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJPAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
12 December 2023
Judges listed
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed as withdrawn

Citations

Official
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1136 · 2023 INSC 1089
Also cited as
  • 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1714 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 Recording the said submission, this special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, but with the following observation touching the recurrence of a situation occurring despite the repeated orders of this Court made with a view to avert such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.

p. 1137

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.

p. 1137

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 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.

pp. 1137–1138

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.”

p. 1138

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.

p. 1138

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.

p. 1138