The Supreme Court recently criticised its registry for listing connected petitions before different Benches of the Court [Arsheel @ Amaan v. State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and AS Chandurkar noted that the petitions filed by two co-accused in the same case and challenging similar High Court orders, were listed before different Benches of the Supreme Court.The Court opined that the errant Registry official must be held responsible for the lapse."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. Responsibility of the guilty officer needs to be fixed," the Court said. .The matter is tied to the Allahabad High Court's decision to cancel bail granted to two men accused in a criminal case involving allegations of murder and offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988. Two separate orders were passed on December 15, 2025, by Justice Anil Kumar of the High Court to cancel the bail granted to Arsheel @ Amaan and co-accused Junaid Khan @ Sheebu.Both accused men moved the Supreme Court challenging the cancellation of their bail..On January 21, Arsheel's petition was taken up by the Bench of Justices Bindal and Chandurkar. During the hearing, Arsheel's counsel informed the Bench that a similar plea filed by a co-accused, Junaid Khan, was listed before another Bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna.The petitioner's counsel added that the Bench led by Justice Nagarathna had also issued notice on Junaid's plea and stayed the bail cancellation order passed by the High Court. This eventually led the Bench of Justices Bindal and Chandurkar to list Arsheel's petition before the Bench led by Justice Nagarathna as well."Let the present petition be also listed before the Bench presided over by BV Nagarathna,J. after obtaining appropriate order from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India," it ordered. However, the Bench also questioned how such related cases were listed before different Benches of the Court, and ordered the registry to explain this lapse to the Chief Justice of India. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Akshansh Harsh..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
