The Supreme Court sought a detailed explanation from its Registry after two petitions arising from the same FIR and impugned order were listed before separate Benches, directing the facts be placed before the Chief Justice and accountability fixed accordingly.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has requested a comprehensive explanation from its Registry concerning the listing of two petitions linked to the same First Information Report (FIR) and contested order being presented before different Benches.
The Court has mandated that the facts be submitted to the Chief Justice of India to ascertain why these matters were not scheduled together and emphasized the need to identify the responsible officer for this oversight.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, was examining a Special Leave Petition filed by Arsheel @ Amaan against the Allahabad High Court’s order dated December 15, 2025, which had revoked bail in Criminal Appeal No. 10391 of 2025.
The petitioner, Arsheel @ Amaan, sought to challenge the final judgment and order issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, through its order on December 15, 2025, rescinded the bail granted to the accused. During the hearing before Justice Bindal and Justice Chandurkar, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that a related case involving a co-accused was pending before another Supreme Court Bench.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, argued that the current petition contests the “same impugned order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.10391 of 2025.” He informed the Bench that a separate petition, SLP (Criminal) No. 880 of 2026, had been filed by a co-accused stemming from the same order and was being reviewed by a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
He further noted that in the connected case before Justice Nagarathna’s Bench, a notice had already been issued and the “operation of the impugned order has been stayed.”
ALSO READ: “Complete Anarchy, How Can Supreme Court Registry Do That?”: SC Slammed its Registry
Acknowledging these arguments, the Bench expressed its concern about the administrative error of listing related matters in different courts. The Court remarked that the petition from the other co-accused, whose bail was revoked by the same High Court judgment, was scheduled before a different panel of Judges.
As a result, the Court instructed that the current petition be presented to the Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, pending an appropriate order from the Chief Justice of India.
In a firm direction regarding the Registry’s operations, the Court stated,
“The Registry is directed to place complete facts before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India that against the same impugned order passed by the High Court arising out of the same FIR, why two petitions filed before this Court have been listed before different Benches.”
The Court also mentioned,
“Responsibility of the guilty officer needs to be fixed.”
The matter has been directed to be transferred to the appropriate Bench to ensure coherent adjudication of the related appeals.
Case Title: Arsheel @ Amaan v. State of U.P & Anr. SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1123/2026
Read Attachment: