Delhi HC Reiterates Rule Against Forum Shopping In Bail Matters Arising From Same FIR

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that subsequent bail applications arising out of the same First Information Report should ordinarily be listed before the same judge who had decided an earlier bail plea, in order to maintain consistency and avoid conflicting decisions.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while hearing a regular bail application filed by an accused in connection with an FIR registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

At the outset, counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the applicant’s earlier anticipatory bail plea had already been dismissed on merits by the same Bench on 31.10.2025. On this basis, the counsel requested that the present regular bail application be placed before a different Bench.

It was argued that since the Court had already formed an opinion on the merits of the case while rejecting anticipatory bail, there was a likelihood that the same view may influence the outcome of the present bail application.

Opposing the request, the State submitted that settled legal principles and directions issued by the Supreme Court require that subsequent bail applications arising from the same FIR be listed before the same judge who had dealt with the earlier plea.

The prosecution contended that permitting such transfers would encourage litigants to engage in forum shopping by approaching different benches in the hope of securing favourable orders.

According to the State, such a practice would undermine judicial discipline and affect the administration of justice.

While considering the rival submissions, the High Court referred to the established position of law that matters arising from the same FIR, particularly bail applications whether anticipatory or regular, should ordinarily be heard by the same judge, provided the judge continues to hold the relevant roster.

The Court noted that the Registry is bound to follow these directions while listing cases and must ensure that such matters are placed before the appropriate Bench.

At the same time, the Court addressed the concern raised by the accused’s counsel regarding apprehension of bias or predisposition due to the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail.

“…..the Registry of this Court is bound to act in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is in compliance with the aforesaid position of law that matters arising out of the same FIR, particularly applications seeking bail, whether anticipatory or regular, are ordinarily listed before the same Bench/Judge who had earlier decided the previous bail application of the accused and who continues to hold the criminal roster”, the Court noted.

The Bench observed that if the counsel genuinely believes that the matter should be heard by another Bench, appropriate remedies are available under law and may be pursued in accordance with established legal procedures.

“….if the learned counsel is of the view that the present matter ought to be placed before another Bench; since he is of the view that he will be unable to secure regular bail from this Court, which he clearly stated in the Court, as his anticipatory bail has already been dismissed by this Court – he may take appropriate steps as available to him in law”, the Court observed.

The High Court ultimately did not accept the request for transfer at this stage and reiterated the general rule governing listing of bail applications arising from the same FIR.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on April 15.

Case Title: Dimpy Chugh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgement: 16.03.2026